| Question Home |
Position:Home>Visual Arts> Have you ever wondered why in the 1500's nude photos/painting were art, whilQuestion: Have you ever wondered why in the 1500's nude photos/painting were art, while today it's pornography!? Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I!.ve never wondered because there's never been a question for me about defining the two!. In art, a nude is an expression of the perfection of the body, a study of the proportion, musculature, and movement of the body or an accurate depiction of people of the day!. For instance, in the early Renaissance art they had returned to the old Greek style of art!.!.!.!.Greek art depicts men nude because they often were!. It's historical fact!. Not to say that erotic art didn't exist!. It's older by far than most people think!. However, even there a clear difference exists!. Pornography is not art!. It is not even erotic art!. It is using the body, whether male or female, in the basest, most obscene way specifically to generate lust!.Www@QuestionHome@Com There was porn in those days as well!. Many nudes today are not considered porn!.!.!.statue of David, painting Venus Rising form the Sea, various cherubs etc!. (Agreed they were created long ago!.!.!.by predominantly Europeans Europeans are not so hung up on nudity as the immature American youths are!. (and many adults) Nude beaches here in the US have virtually no problems except from "looky-loos" who are not nude but want to look at & photograph naked people!. When I went to a beach in Germany the people would change into and out of their swim suits in the parking lot next to the autobon!.!.!.no screens!. No one ogled you and there were no accidents on the autobon when they could look at the nude people and be (but weren't) distracted!.!.!.!. Modern art is more closely scrutinized for porn and often for good reason!. With Naked adults it's more obvious to discern porn but with children it's almost a given that if a child is naked it's porn!. (Few exceptions)Www@QuestionHome@Com How do you know it was not considered Pornography back then!.!.!.!.may have been, but I agree with other contributors that they are generally discreet, not like some of the photos today!.!.!.you would not think page 3 shots are pornographic but some in mags that expose everything certainly are!.!.!.!.!.also in the 1500 you could be hung or burned at the stake for many things, so maybe that was the reason there was no porno!.!.!.maybe we should bring that back!.!.!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Often!. I think you'll find that pornography was the same in essence at whatever period - it is the intention to provide gratification rather than the the technical ability of the artist that you need to consider, and the attitudes of society as to what is acceptble at any given period!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No, I have'nt wondered that and to be kinda honest, i disagree!. People back then thought that it was rude, and now people think of more as art!.!.!.!.Same today though, you can have 2 pics of naked laydees!.!.!.one's art, and the others porn!. - You can see the difference!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Because they were not opening their legs in the paintings for their gash to be exposed to the world and they were not inserting things, to be frank!. Photographs and paintings of nude ladies with no overt sexual content is still regarded as artWww@QuestionHome@Com Its the difference between history and tastefulness versus tastelessness and nudity for the sake of jacking off!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Photography would have been considered a miracle in the 1500's,apart from anything else!Www@QuestionHome@Com Nude art is alright with me, i rather see it that way then to watch a lot of people killing each other!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |