Women posing for magazines

[Lust Engine]

What's the difference between posing for a magazine and posing for a photographer or even a painter or sketch artist? Where do you draw the line between art and pornography?

I may be posing for some sketches in the future for a well-known artist. I'm not doing it for money, I'm doing it for the art.

I think this has been an eternal struggle for those of us in the arts.

Art & porn can be a fine line, but seeing a nude in an arts annual assumes that it's art. Seeing a naked spread shot with a zebra striped dildo inserted deep in Hustler connotes another thing though.

That's not to say certain erotic art/ photography can't cross the line. It's always been a fine line as far as when it crosses though. Like good porn, good art is supposed to provoke a response.

 

[Blindinthedark]

What's the difference between posing for a magazine and posing for a photographer or even a painter or sketch artist? Where do you draw the line between art and pornography?

I may be posing for some sketches in the future for a well-known artist. I'm not doing it for money, I'm doing it for the art.

I agree with LE that it's a tough call.
I've been in art classes drawing nude models and there was never anything overly erotic about it. They were just models (men and women). I never thought the drawings I did were erotic. It brings up an interesting point.

Is a "twat shot" that's hand drawn any more or less pornographic then than one taken by a camera? It's the same subject matter but somehow the hand-drawn one seems to have more legitimacy as eroticism rather than pornography.


IMHO I'd say that pornography is much more crass and shows only sex and sex objects. Art has more depth to it. Not that art doesn't have sexual content but rather the sexual content is only one part of the whole piece.

 

[James G 5]

What's the difference between posing for a magazine and posing for a photographer or even a painter or sketch artist? Where do you draw the line between art and pornography?

I may be posing for some sketches in the future for a well-known artist. I'm not doing it for money, I'm doing it for the art.

Yanno, as an art photographer I run in to this conflict a lot
(no jokes kids, I seriously am an exhibited award winning artist for my phoyos when I'm not busy taking cheesy digi snaps for your perverted enjoyment )
All I can say is that the line is VERY individual and that a lot of people react very oddly AFTER they do it
Finding willing models who stick to what they agree to is always one of my biggest challenges

 

[James G 5]

Although how that provides self validation is beyond me.

Our society, as a whole, revolves so much around image & others' perceptions of us that many of us dont' feel able to validate ourselves
Women, especially, tie up much of their self-image in how others see them (and BOY do the culture & media promote that)
So putting their photos out, especially if they're women who might not be thought of as "attrractive" under the prevailing cultural standard, and having guys rave about them provides a reassurance that they're sexy & attractive & "OK"

 

[James G 5]

I agree with LE that it's a tough call.
I've been in art classes drawing nude models and there was never anything overly erotic about it. They were just models (men and women). I never thought the drawings I did were erotic. It brings up an interesting point.

Is a "twat shot" that's hand drawn any more or less pornographic then than one taken by a camera? It's the same subject matter but somehow the hand-drawn one seems to have more legitimacy as eroticism rather than pornography.


IMHO I'd say that pornography is much more crass and shows only sex and sex objects. Art has more depth to it. Not that art doesn't have sexual content but rather the sexual content is only one part of the whole piece.

There're PLENTY of people who think that as soon as a camera pops up it immediately ceases to be art & becomes porn
Heck, I've run in to arguments in photo circles where the same pic is considered "art" if it's in B&W and "trash" if it's in color
People's attitudes about it are SO weird

 

[Lust Engine]

There're PLENTY of people who think that as soon as a camera pops up it immediately ceases to be art & becomes porn
Heck, I've run in to arguments in photo circles where the same pic is considered "art" if it's in B&W and "trash" if it's in color
People's attitudes about it are SO weird

I think that some people must think B/W is less realistic whereas color photography seems more realistic, therefore more graphic & in your face.

Either way, it's still a picture!

 

[James G 5]

I think that some people must think B/W is less realistic whereas color photography seems more realistic, therefore more graphic & in your face.

Either way, it's still a picture!

Mebbe to you
I've literally submitted the same photos in the same competitions & had the B&W accepted & the color rejected on those grounds
People are weird

 

[sirmed]

From a Photographer

But how embarrsing would it be if your son or daughter had a boyfriend and they came over and said "i know you...you were in playboy issue 55" or something.

IF there are two individuals in the same image .... that can fall as Porn.... if only one in individual in the shot..it is art...........

 

[Lust Engine]

Re: From a Photographer

IF there are two individuals in the same image .... that can fall as Porn.... if only one in individual in the shot..it is art...........

So now it's a numbers game! Sigh!

 

[ReadyOne]

Females.... (Not to discount the art vs. discussion)

I read 3 reasons.

1. I want to be told that I'm beautiful/sexy/desirable

2. I turn on by showing off

3. I need the money

First, did I miss anything?

Second, would you please comment exhibitionists needing validation? Are they generally mixed together? Or is either of the first two reasons alone what's generally operating?

 

[SexyChele]

I used to have a roommate who was also into the biker lifestyle. She eventually met up with an editor for the magazine "Easy Rider." (Is that publication even around anymore?!?!) They started talking and he liked the way she looked. She had tried her hand at modeling when she was in her late teens, but drugs and babies sort of got in the way. She had a nice portfolio that she showed the guy and he made her an offer. She was the featured model and also got the cover. She was only showed topless, however. She was very photogenic, but not extraordinarily beautiful. She had what is known as "bedroom eyes" and she could really live that up!

Why did she do it? She really didn't understand what the term "modesty" meant - she never understood why I would become upset and my dates get embarassed when she would walk around the apartment nude or in the barest of underwear. To her is was "natural" and those who couldn't accept that were weird. (We won't discuss the times when I would wear revealing clothing in front of her dates and grab their attention, only to have her fume at me in my room for "showing off".) She did it to boost her ego as most of the people she hung out with read that magazine. She did it because she was an exhibitionist - she liked showing off. It gave her some feeling of pride and satisfaction when men would make a big deal about what a "great bod" she had. For the month the mag was on sale, she felt as though all attention was on her. She liked attention - as long as it was focused solely on her. And posing nude in the mag was a way to garner that attention.

I don't believe she was paid very much. I believe she received a couple hundred bucks, plus an extra hundred for being on the cover. She blew that in buying drinks for anyone who told her she looked good. The rest went up her nose. Actually, the biggest kick she got was in buying out an enitire store's supply and watching as the clerk finally realized that the girl on the cover of the magazine was standing right in front of him. He begged to let him have a copy and then autograph it for him. That gave her a total rush.

Actually, I do have to admit that the pictures taken of her were very tasteful. The photographer was a complete professional and really pulled together a great layout. There really wasn't anything smutty or ugly about the pics themselves. The article that accompanied the pics was tasteless, and she wasn't overly fond of that, but she did have the right to think of the pictures as being well done.

 

[ReadyOne]

Me thinks I have a vocabulary/semantics problem.

I've always defined exhibitionist as one who gets a SEXUAL charge from showing off.

But I bet the rest of the world defines is as on who gets an EGO BOOST.

Maybe that is part of my confusion from the stories about why women pose for the public.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

I think there are a lot of hungry girls who go to CA to make it as an actress and end up doing porn to put food on the table. But there are also (especially now days) plenty of porn stars who are in control of their own careers, own their own companies, etc. That was unheard of when I was younger. It was a man's world and the girls were basically just used. Remember Linda Lovelace saying she was drugged the whole time? I kinda of believed her! Lol
As far as the exhibitionist thing - I don't think many real exhibitionists go for magazine spreads. You get no feedback. I want to hear the person I just 'flashed' reaction. I want to see the guy across the bar who can see my panties turn red and get fidgety in his seat. That's what so fun about exhibitionism. (not that I would KNOW - I'm just guess! lol)

 

[Etoile]

I am one of those women who has posed for a national porn magazine.

I didn't do it for the money (it was only $100) or the fame (nobody has recognized me as a result of my appearance) but instead just because I could. I was 19 at the time (this was in April 2000) and the opportunity arose to do a photo shoot for On Our Backs, so I did it. (I found out through Hanne Blank, who is a well-known sex author and is also my partner's ex-husband's fiancée).

Was it the exhibitionism factor? I guess you could say that. At the time, I was proud of my body and was happy with who I was, and I didn't see anything wrong with appearing in the magazine. If I were offered the opportunity to do it again, I certainly would, though the 20 pounds I've gained since then (due to medical problems) make me more self-conscious about my body. My parents were less than thrilled (my mother has seen the pictures, my stepdad refuses to look) but it's not their business. This is who I am: a submissive dyke slutgrrl who poses for porno.

I consider my appearance in On Our Backs to be one of the best experiences I've had. I love being able to look back at my pictures and go "wow! I was fucking sexy!" Getting the occasional compliments in my e-mail helps too.

 

[lovechild27]

What's the difference between posing for a magazine and posing for a photographer or even a painter or sketch artist? Where do you draw the line between art and pornography?

well first of all...I didnt get paid huge bucks to do it...did I get a nice sum yes...but nothing close to what Hustler would pay.

Second...the shots were very close ups of body parts...maybe a shoulder and breast...a hip...maybe half a face and neck. The people I have shown them to dont consider them pornographic at all. He was taking the shots to be made into a coffee table book. (it obviously never got made or I would of gotten some cash from that) The ones when I was posing with another woman were a little more rsique...but again..nothing below the waist. Mostly close ups of lips kissing and hands over breasts...that sort of thing.

It was definately ment to be erotic...but blantantly pornographic...no.

I think pornographic..I think lewd....and when something is in color it just looks more explicit...

 

[Snowballz]

" If I were offered the opportunity to do it again, I certainly would, though the 20 pounds I've gained since then (due to medical problems) make me more self-conscious about my body."

Im sure your still very cute even with your extra 20 pounds

 

[Blindinthedark]

There're PLENTY of people who think that as soon as a camera pops up it immediately ceases to be art & becomes porn
Heck, I've run in to arguments in photo circles where the same pic is considered "art" if it's in B&W and "trash" if it's in color
People's attitudes about it are SO weird

No argument here. I think photography is just as artistic as any other medium. The only difference is that photography is more about composition than traditional ink, painting and sculpture.

I totally agree with you that it's weird. But hey one persons art is anothers trash.

You'll never see velvet paintings of Elvis in my home

 

[Blindinthedark]

I consider my appearance in On Our Backs to be one of the best experiences I've had. I love being able to look back at my pictures and go "wow! I was fucking sexy!" Getting the occasional compliments in my e-mail helps too.

Would you have felt differently if it were Hustler or Gallery or something a little less tasteful? Or does that matter?

 

[DuckLover]

I'll grant that color photographs, by their very nature, suggest pornography more than art to me. (That's not to say that color photos can't be art.) I've been thinking about this topic a lot while reading the thread, and here's what I've concluded.

It's all about PERCIEVED skill. Any fool can snap a color photograph. Cameras and film are plentiful and cheap; even digital photography is rapidly becoming available to the masses. It doesn't take virtually any skill or artistic talent to take a picture of a naked woman. B/W photos, on the otherhand, are a small subset of photography. They seem to mostly be used for artistic shots in general. They rely much more on scene design and planned light levels. Finally, painting or sketching obviously requires a great deal of skill. Personally, I can barely draw stick figures, so seeing ANYTHING drawn freehand is impressive. Drawing also requires more time investment per scene. Consequently, when I believe the person capturing the scene employed a high degree of skill and expended time and effort on it, I more strongly tend to view the scene as erotic art, not pornography.

Please understand that I'm not slamming photographers. I fully understand that really good photography requires a lot of skill and time to create the shots that make the Playboy centerfold and other artistic photography. My above comments refer to perception; it's much harder to "see" the skill and time involved in a color photograph than in a hand-drawing.

 

[James G 5]

I used to have a roommate who was also into the biker lifestyle. She eventually met up with an editor for the magazine "Easy Rider." (Is that publication even around anymore?!?!)

Yeah it is
they've actualy spun it in to 3 magazines, Easy Rider & Easy Rider V Twin with Bikini Babes and a 3rd (I don't know the title offhand) with the nakedity

 

[James G 5]

I am one of those women who has posed for a national porn magazine.

I didn't do it for the money (it was only $100) or the fame (nobody has recognized me as a result of my appearance) but instead just because I could. I was 19 at the time (this was in April 2000) and the opportunity arose to do a photo shoot for On Our Backs, so I did it. (I found out through Hanne Blank, who is a well-known sex author and is also my partner's ex-husband's fiancée).

Was it the exhibitionism factor? I guess you could say that. At the time, I was proud of my body and was happy with who I was, and I didn't see anything wrong with appearing in the magazine. If I were offered the opportunity to do it again, I certainly would, though the 20 pounds I've gained since then (due to medical problems) make me more self-conscious about my body. My parents were less than thrilled (my mother has seen the pictures, my stepdad refuses to look) but it's not their business. This is who I am: a submissive dyke slutgrrl who poses for porno.

I consider my appearance in On Our Backs to be one of the best experiences I've had. I love being able to look back at my pictures and go "wow! I was fucking sexy!" Getting the occasional compliments in my e-mail helps too.

Amen!
And I'm sure if you'd ever let me photograph you I could show that you're still "fucking sexy!"

 

[James G 5]

I'll grant that color photographs, by their very nature, suggest pornography more than art to me. (That's not to say that color photos can't be art.) I've been thinking about this topic a lot while reading the thread, and here's what I've concluded.

It's all about PERCIEVED skill. Any fool can snap a color photograph. Cameras and film are plentiful and cheap; even digital photography is rapidly becoming available to the masses. It doesn't take virtually any skill or artistic talent to take a picture of a naked woman. B/W photos, on the otherhand, are a small subset of photography. They seem to mostly be used for artistic shots in general. They rely much more on scene design and planned light levels. Finally, painting or sketching obviously requires a great deal of skill. Personally, I can barely draw stick figures, so seeing ANYTHING drawn freehand is impressive. Drawing also requires more time investment per scene. Consequently, when I believe the person capturing the scene employed a high degree of skill and expended time and effort on it, I more strongly tend to view the scene as erotic art, not pornography.

Please understand that I'm not slamming photographers. I fully understand that really good photography requires a lot of skill and time to create the shots that make the Playboy centerfold and other artistic photography. My above comments refer to perception; it's much harder to "see" the skill and time involved in a color photograph than in a hand-drawing.

That's a pretty good summation of a lot of the attitudes I see

 

[Wickid Cherry Pie]

I've just looked at your photos, Etoile, and they are really beautiful. It's no wonder that you are proud of them.
Maybe I only like them because they are in B&W.

On another note, I think that some of us are just narcissists rather than exhibitionists. We feed on the attention that others will dole out on us, and if it means showing some skin, then, so be it!

 

[Mstrskey]

Interesting Q LE...

I personally have never, and will never have the body to make such a venture, but I've never thought poorly of the women who have chosen to. I am of the opinion that the human body can be quite beautiful in all it's shapes and sizes and can also be quite erotic.
For me I guess the beef is in the nature of the posing/photography rather then the fact that there is nudity. It becomes less and less about the woman in the picture when you open the Oui/Hustler/Penthouse centerfold and the image in the forefront is the womans glossy, oiled, fingered vagina and the backdrop to the image is the rest of her body. Why bother? Clearly the woman regardless of her beauty wasn't what the picture ws about IMHO. Now that's not to say that there aren't vaginal pictures that aren't well done or erotic in nature but for the most part many of the commercial " adult" mags tend to focus only on the genetalia and the penetration or manipulation thereof and forget that there is a woman attached to it. To be that's not erotic, to me that's tacky.
Like many I do find that black and white work is more to my liking. I find that in B&W the shadows, slopes, lines, and curves of the body are more readily expressed. The hidden sensuality in the subjects features is more readily expressed and conveyed. Maybe I'm cerebral I dunno, maybe I just can't associate with some bombshell who is perfectly made up with nary a mascara nor lipstick smudge as she is supposedly in the throes of orgasmic bliss?

Like I said, I don't have the body for it, but if I found a good photographer that I trusted and whos work I admired I'd consider posing in the nude or in erotic photography. I wouldn't however consider doing Hustler or the sort.

 

[SexyChele]

Re: Interesting Q LE...

Like I said, I don't have the body for it, but if I found a good photographer that I trusted and whos work I admired I'd consider posing in the nude or in erotic photography. I wouldn't however consider doing Hustler or the sort.

You would be surprised at what a good photographer can do with what society considers less than perfect bodies. I have a gallery of different porn pics at my web site and one of my favorites is of a woman who is certainly overweight but very curvy with a seductive look that burns into one's soul. She is totally hot! A photographer who can see beyond what society sees can bring out the sensuality and eroticism of almost any woman, I firmly believe.

And yeah, I agree with you (and most others) on color vs B&W photography, though I can't say exactly why. I guess that's why I've always had B&W AVs. <shrugs>