What is tasteful nudity?

-what do you consider artistic nudes?

For me personally (probably an unpopular opinion) i don't find naked pictures in and of themselves to be art. You can make it all deep and contrasting but to me it's still just somebody with their clothes off. Artistic nudity to me is actual created art of a nude subject, such as a painting or sculpture.
I'm much more inclined to call photos that aren't intended to be out right pornographic tasteful nudes.
I think photos that show vulnerability, love, closeness, or the bond between 2 people (or dolls in this case) are tasteful (like gentle caressing or holding each other, sex isn't in the same category for me). So something that portrays something more than just "hey look i'm naked".

-What defines "artistic"

I guess for me, art requires more effort than i see in most "artistic nudes". I'm not dissing the photographers that actually take the effort to do beautiful images of a subject, but a lot of what i have seen labeled as such is just some naked person run through a photoshop filter (usually grayscaled). Too much of it is just point and shoot photography with very little effort put into lighting or quality.

-What defines "pornographic"

To me, pornographic is usually pretty obvious. Images of people acting distinctly sexual, together or solo.

-Where, and better yet, should we draw the line?

I don't think we should draw a line, people are free to do whatever they feel like with their own dolls and camera.
Obviously not all of it should be here on DoA, but still :P

-Does dolls versus people change your opinions?

Not really. If i see someone's dolls posed to be acting like porn stars, that's probably what i'll think of the the pictures. if it's obvious a lot of thought went into the posing to bring out something beautiful, sensitive, or emotional. I'll find it tasteful.

 

I think almost anything can define "artsitic". I have a little brother that draws in scribbles, we still say he is artistic for all of his developmental delays. I think anyone that makes art in a way is considered artistic. Just making art can consider someone an artist. Sure people may not like a certain persons art but I feel they still have a right to be an artist.

There is a fine line in my mind between nude photos and pornography. Nude photos to me are something naked(a doll or person) but there is no horrible body parts are being shown.(Body parts as in the girl and boy parts. Nipples include as a body part that I don't think many people would like to see.) Pornography in my mind is showing everything. I don't think pornography really needs to be explained. But that it just shows everything and nothing is left out.

My opinion how this doesn't change for dolls or people. To me it's just the same thing. To me dollies are people, they just aren't alive. But they are people too.

 

For me, the difference between 'tasteful' nudity and pornography is just that; tasteful nudity is tasteful whilst pornography is crude with no purpose other than to sexual excite. I hate pornography and am very skeptical about so called artistic nudity. This opinion is along the line I think:

That and I often find most 'artistic nudes' are clean shaven/waxed, skinny women in predominently vulnerable or titillating positions. Ugh.

 

In my opinion it is very depending of the person itself.. one look and see the pure art.. another look and sees the pornography..

I think the main thing is the tastiness of the picture itself.. the natural pose.. hidden joints (imho) (if we are talking about doll) nice light and colors chosen with taste.. sure i dont mean naked pictures of "those" zones.. tastefull (not "flat"/cheap..) clothes.. acessories.. so then i think is possible to create an art instead of cheap pic.. just thinking loudly.

 

I'm generally not bothered by the question of art vs porn as it's always going to come down to a matter of personal perspective. When it comes to dolls, I think that I am a little more reserved because I know that anything can be interpreted and used as pornographic material and I wouldn't want my doll to be the object of those attentions. The difference between dolls and people is about the same as the difference between animal and people. A person has the ability to say, "No, I'm uncomfortable," or "This just isn't for me," but a doll not specifically designed for sexually explicit purposes does not have that ability. Granted, the doll isn't alive, but I think that because they're so close to human form and because we as their owners put so much stock, love, and life into them, a violation of a doll seems to be just as serious and personal as a violation of the owner.

So I guess the short answer is that the difference is the owner and what they classify as "Okay" and "within the comfort zone" of their doll.

 

I agree that it's in the eye of the beholder. Even a picture taken with innocent intent will be the height of sexuality to someone out there.

 

This is very thought-provoking but I agree with those of you who say it's in the eye of the beholder. Again with my favorite quote: There is nothing wrong or right, but thinking makes it so.

 

I think to me 'artistic' focuses more on the emotion, as opposed to 'pornography' focusing on the sex. Art to me focuses more on the faces and porn more on the hips. But I like both and I'm not offended by either, whether the subjects be people or dolls.

 

I am new to all this and while searching for the first doll was shocked no surprised on how much detail the dolls have weather it female or male equipment so as long as it stays in look it do and no one company works or decides to do a range of add ons to for the dolls, i think its safe and can be artistic, i guess like Deviant art site which will show most things but major porn excitement

 

What makes a photo take the leap from artistic nude to straight out pornography is the gestures, poses, props and, like Fin Raziel said, the emotion within the picture. I studied anatomy so I appreciate artistic nudes, and feel I can tell the difference between an innocent nude and a devious one.

I am a firm believer in doing what feels right for you, so if you get your jollies off watching dolls bump nasties, enjoy. I myself don't really care for that, but I also do not think human porn is gross. I wouldn't go so far as say I like it or watch it, but I don't think it's so horrible we must do away with it. Same with inanimate object porn. Everyone has their quirks, and we all deserve a little respect.

 

Like other members here, I also have an art history background. For those that do not, I'd like to suggest viewing the two following paintings:

"Liberty Leading the People"and "La Grande Odalisque".

"...Odalisque" is essentially a decorated prostitute. The artist (Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres), purposefully painted the woman with a few extra vertebra. I believe his intention was to show the grace of the female back. So, even though the subject is naked, and a concubine, she's still beautiful. I think this painting is a great definition of artistic nudity...though it may not have been seen that way when originally painted.

"Lady Liberty..." is a great example of empowerment through nudity. I think the painting would have lost it's meaning had the woman been completely clothed.

I agree with other members here that there necessarily isn't a reason to censor naked dolls. I suppose it's because I don't see them in a "sexual" light, especially if someone displays them as nude when for sale. However, I do agree with mentioning said nudity in a title; just in case someone finds nude dolls offensive in some way.

With everyone's beliefs and opinions, there really won't ever be a right and wrong, or what is "too suggestive". It all boils down to: If you don't like it, don't look at it

 

"Bump Nasties"?? Is that what one says when one is too squeamish for those overly-strong anatomical words like Peepee or Hoo-Ha?

 

Hah, I'm actually fond of that one. Not that I have a problem with saying the word "sex" or whatever, but sometimes the situation calls for something more vulgar and humorous to fit the mood of the rest of what you're saying. (Besides, in the case of dolls I do believe it'll actually be more like "bumping" and less like "having sex")



In regards to artistic nudity vs. pornography, I actually think it's absurd that porn is "that other thing" that no one dares mention. I have a bunch of friends who draw pornorgraphy (some did it for a living actually, for a short while) and it's something that they seldom mention around people, not to mention never put on their resume, and all I can do is ask "why?". I mean, drawing porn? My god, that requires some serious skill and knowledge of human anatomy to actually draw it well! I definitely think that pornography, when executed with thought and class, can be artistic as well as arousing and the two do not contradict each other.

I have seen a small amount of doll porn that I thought was artistic (I don't actively seek them out, but these few were pointed out to me as an example of it done well). Sure, it might have been very obviously sexual, but the focus and the composition of the whole shot was obviously well thought out and took a while to plan and execute. It was obviously done for the artistic merit in representing human sex/the character in a more intimate situation. The shot was NOT meant to please the viewer; in fact, I think the viewer was actually thrust out of the picture, because THEY weren't the ones the dolls/characters in the photo cared about. I am still in awe at the skill of the photographer. I think that objectification - pleasing the viewer instead of the person (character/doll) in the shot - is what really separates tasteless pornography and art, and I think it also applies to doll photography, if one is so inclined. Personally though, I think unblushed dolls don't look very interesting nude regardless of the setting. They're kind of... bland, unless the photos are taken with a skillful hand. (but boy, do I love me some doll irezumi... and it makes for some fantastic nude doll shots)




Regarding censoring sales/comparison photos though - a lot of us do it simply because we use Photobucket to host our sales photos and PB goes hardass on yo ass over doll nudity and deletes your photos for "inappropriate content" (that it does this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I won't go into this here). We still want to use Photobucket though because it's reliable and convenient so we just censor the "inappropriate" bits and assume most people can figure out what's behind the censor.

 

Someone kinda said it earlier and I agree enough to repeat it

Tasteful nudity is about naked-ness Pornography is about sex.

Now nakedness doesn't have to mean exposed 'bits' it could be a conveyed emotional state.

I'll use Van Gogh as an example.
Van Gogh had a reputation for (like many other artists) making sketches of prostitutes. However if you (dare) search "Van Gogh Prostitutes" you won't get (what I would call) pornography.
The art shown is pretty blant depicting breasts and genitals at times but the over all message of the image is not one of sex despite the subject being a sex worker.
Sorrow is in fact a fine example, this woman is clearly naked but more importantly than her physical nakedness is the obvious EMOTIONAL nakedness. How you can see her story in the depiction of her body.

On the other hand lets take this modern picture
Glee
The woman depicted in not naked in any way. Every thing is covered she's even wearing socks, and there are no other figures in the picture. She is confident and engaged knowing 'exactly what she's about.'
Never the less the image is blatantly sexual.
Physical nudity would just make this image 'worse' in this regard.
This I would consider pornographic (albeit very mild)

I honestly would be more comfortable with my younger sisters, both under 13, looking at Van Gogh or the statue of David than the image above.

That said I think there is some artistic merit in images like Glee or even Playboy because they are sexuAL but not SEX.

I'll say it again Pornography is sex.
Oral, anal, vaginal, with hands or toys sex is sex.
If you show me a pictures of humans, dolls, statues, heck two genderless stuffed animals 'engaging' in any of the above I'm gonna tell you I'm looking at porn plain and simple.
Do I think you should be arrested for having two dolls going at it? No.
But that doesn't change that I think you are making pornography.