I ran across an interesting blog post from Mojokiss, debating the differences between what is perceived as art, and what is perceived as, well, porn.
I get many mixed reactions about my photographs. I've been scoffed at, scorned and berated for taking it "too far". I've had my style labeled as fetish photography by some, and fetish art by others. At the end of May I brought home all my pieces from my showing that month to package up and ship the pieces that sold. The rest I just tacked up in my hallway at home, and I'll be honest, there are at least 3 or 4 of those portraits that contain nudity. But no, I'm not running a dominatrix dungeon, and it's not a nod to my personal life whatsoever. I simply get a kick out of people's reactions. :)
Here are two key phrases I pulled from the aforementioned blog post:
:: "What is porn? I ask myself because i want to know what im shooting, and what i will be taken as, with a given body of work. Porn is an industry. Thats what porn is. Its material that is meant for making money off of a preexisting market where the goal is to create and sell work that fits a variety of categories."
on the contrary...
:: "what is art? so since we know what porn is now, we can more easily say what art is. i would like to state here that art is anything that is original and not designed for an industry, but out of a personal emotional connection with the subject and process. Art can become an element of industry, but industry cannot become art."
"So if i make images that are erotic, that show nudity, every angle and part of a body, in all types of positions and expressions, it can't be called porn if im not selling it to the horny masses."
Which, I am not. :) So take it or leave it, but I don't shoot porn. :)