Fine Art Nude vs Erotic Nude vs Porn

You should grab a cup and have a seat for this one.

So the question is: Are there any differences between Fine Art Nude, Erotic Nude, and Pornography? Yes, I believe so. However, the lines are heavily blurred and may be situation dependent. Often they need to fit neatly into one box or the other. Depending on the composition in question, it may fit into TWO boxes or even all 3, although no particular image comes to mind that does that. I've discussed Nude vs. Naked on my blog before, but this is not that. Opinions will vary, to be sure. People raised and educated in one place/culture will differ from another.

Classic Fine Art Nude

Fine Art Nude

Fine Art Nude is a genre of art considered more palatable for most people as it is usually presented in a traditional, conservative, or reserved way. It might have an element of "timelessness" to it. It can be broken down into Classic/Traditional or Modern/Contemporary. The nudity aspects may be implied, as no breast or genitalia is ever exposed via strategic means of covering all that, but you know the subject is not clothed. Whenever you hear the term "tasteful," it will often fall into this category. 

This will usually be a woman, and the subject's thighs might be together, have a twist in their hips, or any pose that protects the private area with a bit of modesty. Fine Art doesn't have to mean old, and it doesn't have to be created by a master artist, but it will typically refer to a painting more than a photograph. If it's a male subject, it will usually demonstrate a version of the perfect male physique.

Modern Fine Art Nudes may be more subjective because some will still consider it pornographic and/or obscene, no matter what, mainly if it's photography. Paintings or any media that isn't true to life might get a pass. The breasts may be exposed, and everything else will likely adhere to classic standards. Poses are usually depicted in a demur or goddess manner. Attention is not necessarily drawn to the nudity, but maybe the pose, the subject's beauty, or the composition's circumstances. It could be a scene of a nude subject in a domestic setting showing her backside getting dressed. Or possibly a topless figure performing ballet. Nudes for Anatomy Studies might also fit here.

Fine Art/Erotic Nude

Erotic Nude

This is where I've hit the mud in several debates if I contest or dispute people's assessment by classifying something as erotic photography or erotica. This is where the line begins to significantly blur. The only real difference between Fine Art Nude and Erotic Nude is the possible inclusion of genitalia or the suggestion of sensuality or sexuality. Said bluration stems from the fact that while genitals may be exposed, it could still be fine art, but maybe more contemporary. 

Understand, we're talking about erotic nudes. Not erotica in general. In general terms, erotica does not even have to involve nudity whatsoever. It may just inspire sensuality or even arousal without exposing anything. Nudity is not a requirement. Concerning nudes, however, if there is any focus on the genitalia... in that the composition intentionally draws the eyes towards it, then definitely erotic/erotica. Creative lighting, depth of field, macro techniques, OR use of the hand on or near the genitalia brings you squarely into the erotic box. However, the kicker for me is this: Nudity, inclusive of genitalia or not... inclusive of sensuality or not... does not describe sexual intent. I learned this in Germany as a young man: NUDITY does not equal SEX.

Definitely Erotic Nude. Doesn't fit my description of pornography in the following paragraph. 

Pornography

And now you have the real line. Nudity is one thing. Sex is another. Now let me ask this. Can something express intent for sexual desire without being pornographic? Of course, it can. Art is a direct reflection of someone's interpretation and expression of life. Sexuality is a huge part of our existence and our identity. Who says sex shouldn't be depicted in art? Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Rodin, Picasso, and Warhol had zero issues with it.

Then does anything depicting or insinuating sex fall into the Porn box? What is pornography? Most definitions agree that it's any media depicting graphic nude content or acts with the intent to elicit sexual arousal and desire. The focus may be more heavily weighted on either content than intent. Here is my problem with that definition and the two things I think they leave out: Mass Production, Distribution, and you can often throw in a third element: Accompanied by Similar or Optional Content. 

For myself, if those things are not in the equation, then it's reclassed as erotica. To be clear, erotica often includes sexual, sensual, and acts meant for arousal. But if it is a one-of-a-kind piece of art (or limited editions) not widely produced and distributed. Nor is it displayed among additional options for similar material... then it is not porn. That includes works in a gallery exhibition, among others of the same genre. You can fight me on it if you wish.

Can All Three Be Art?

Of course! I have no problem with sensuality, sexuality, or sex in art. It's still an expression of life. Life begins with sex. You can't have human life without it. At least not the way nature intended! I'm not going all out and saying all porn is art, but yes, some of it can be made so, whether in print (literary, painting, photo), 3D media (sculpture), or performance art (video or live). 

Sure, there are ways that sexuality in art has been done that I can not relate to, sometimes depicted in ways that make me uncomfortable. But that's like everything else in art. The vast majority of it will not suit you. I've never heard any critique of Italian artist Sandro Botticelli (Birth of Venus). However, I was in Bogota, Colombia, and saw an exhibit by Fernando Botero. A large woman in the museum left out feeling stigmatized by some of the other patrons. All art is not for everyone.

There is definitely a nasty, ugly, and illegal side to pornography. I do not support underage exploitation, human trafficking, blackmail, addiction, harassment, retaliation, violence, or any activity denying someone's privacy or civil rights. I'm not making a moral or religious argument. But I'm not going to be hypocritical and say my work is fine, but this other person's art is not just because I don't like it or it makes me uncomfortable... without being violent or infringing on someone's civil rights.

I get asked about this topic often. It's easily the Top 3. So I chose to speak on it in this format. My word is not the final judgment to be written into law. I may need to make clarifications or even be corrected. I'd love to be schooled on this if anyone has more insight I can consider.