|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-11-2007
|
#16 | |
|
rising star
 |
Quote:
moreover a vagina is not pornography by itself, you need to insert something , possibly a penis. BTW also explicit sexual acts can be portrayed as art, it's all in the hands of the photographer ability. mostly for historical reasons playboy is obviously a magazine not suited for art photography, but by a mistake it can happen to have some artistic photos also in adult magazines anyway speaking of this editorial , I don't think that blurred photos can be considered art (too easy and old game)... the only one that looks good to me is her (well focused) portrait, and is more in her ability as an actress to use her eyes rather than in the photographer |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2007
|
#17 |
|
V.I.P.
 
|
ok we can discuss what is porn for years...
my point was the new art direction is not everywhere... playboy is still playboy and eventhough there's one or two "artisitc nude" things... the rest is still erotic (if you want... but to me this is porn...a ***** front shot with a finger in it...is porn to me...) |
|
|
|
03-11-2007
|
#18 |
|
rising star
|
Having seen the scans, the Juliette pics are just too blurry and out of focus.
|
|
|
|
03-11-2007
|
#19 | |
|
rising star
|
the adult and fashion publications are changing ...
Quote:
 I can't agree more, a finger insertion (i.e. simulating masturbation) is a pornographic act, but playboy was and is an erotic publication with no sexual activity (simulated or real) involved, it's erotic as you said. anyway, I don't give a moral value at photography, I don't see any bad thing in pornography by itself, it only (mostly) lacks of artistic value ... in photography it's the art that matters and so I don't like playboy (maybe the some girls inside ) even the new "artistic" one, still I consider the tentative to improve their image with better photography as a good thing.it's also a matter of market decision, even penthouse where pornography is/was a trademark (in direct competition to the only erotic playboy) the tentative to use better photographers is a regular activity in some recent editorials (still no good quality even there). maybe you don't like this borderline publications (nor I, from a photographic point of view) but when, thanks to internet, any young(and old) reader can see easily any kind of photography, the ability for a mag to be recognized above the mass is with better quality and when most fashion publications start to invade what previously was regularly only available on adult magazines (the nudes) it's obvious that the market is changing, nudity is the norm on female fashion magazines and the photographer quality was and is arguably better then the one on the adult man magazines, but if the target reader of the male magazine is not "masturbatory" (sorry but I cant express better this concept in a language that isn't mine) they have to improve their photography to compete with the new vogue of the female magazines, whose readers are younger and strongly connected, so for them grown up with a lot of enlarge your penis spam in their email, it is normal to see(even if you don't want) naked bodies, eventually involved in sexual activities you cant think with the previous moral but with the new one today nudes are art and (almost) universally accepted, tomorrow will be pornography(?) as a matter of fact in the beginning of the previous century the equivalent supermodel was just an equivalent of (almost) a prostitute ... things luckily changed, there isn't any more a moral judgment on many female activities, it was immoral also to work (any work!)  this is the sign of the time, different values are applied to apparently similar things in different times if you see a naked woman in a photo of 100 years ago you can reasonably bet she was a prostitute, and I'm not giving a moral value I'm just saying her main work was prostitution and modeling was just a way to gain some more money in a more relaxing way. if you use a naked girl photographed today you can't bet anything, can be anyone, even your wife, yours girlfriend, your daughter or in many cases a supermodel, an actress or a star or any kind, promoting her image moral is a flux of information, the influence it has on art (photography in this case) can't be underestimated, I don't see playboy becoming an artistic product anytime soon, but I regularly see art appropriating of the content that was available in playboy and may be in a near future of some more explicit publications, it's just a matter of time fashion photographer will do pornography (regularly not just as a matter of provocation) obviously most of readers aren't ready to this jump today, but many of the young ones will clearly if you look at pornography as it is today you can't agree it's a good "artistic" step, but if you interpolate how "bad" was nude photography a century ago and how better it's today you can guess also porno art can have a chance. in the meantime playboy(penthouse etc ...) try to use fashion photographers to make nudity better there is a mixture of influences adult magazines grabbing from fashion and fashion being influenced from adult magazines ... I see (and saw in the previoos years) a lot of man reading female magazines (mostly for the photographic content) it's time to see women starting to take a different look at male magazines .. may be in the near future there will be no differentiations in the reader the reader will look at the publication with the better photographer ... and trust me there will stil be a lot of dressed people inside  |
|
|
|
|
04-11-2007
|
#20 |
|
V.I.P.
|
^that's actually interesting
so thank you... you're saying things i never thought of... that's actually good to discuss for years...  |
|
|
|
04-11-2007
|
#22 |
|
Gaga Ooh La La
|
I'm sorry, maybe someone can enlighten me but I am completely and utterly confused about who the target audience of this magazine is
__________________
Check out my blog with kevinnn > Kevily's Thoughts and Opinions on Fashin AN OASIS OF HORROR IN A DESERT OF BOREDOM |
|
|
|
04-11-2007
|
#23 |
|
front row
|
Thank you for posting this alxxxfast!
I liked it. |
|
|
|
05-11-2007
|
#24 |
|
don't look down
|
pornography must involve sexual acts, and to my knowledge no edition of playboy has, till now, editorials with sexual acts, anyway many, if not all, edition of playboy have few artistic photos.
Surely the act of deliberately exposing oneself with the aim to cause sexual excitement in others is a sexual act. Moreover a vagina is not pornography by itself, you need to insert something, possibly a penis. Which scenario would be closest to pornography - a deliberately enticing image of a shaved vagina - or a picture of a woman getting a smear test at the doctors. The latter involves 'insertion' and should therefore be more pornographic, by your definition. But it isn't. Because context is all, not 'acts'. No-one has to be touching the flesh for an image to be richly pornographic. If sexual acts are reduced to the definition of 'object into body part' then alas, there's suddenly a meagre range of sexual acts available on our menus. For me, what I take as the definition of 'pornographic' is the one that's generally agreed on, whether it matches my own personal view or not. For most people, Playboy is pornographic. That's the reason why some buy it, that's the reason why some object to it.
__________________
Futurology isn't what it used to be. |
|
|
|
11-04-2008
|
#25 |
|
i'm almost ready..
|
does anyone have or know where i might find the english translation of juliette's interview? thank you
__________________
maybe..just maybe in time
i'll be fine.. |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
both Juliette Binoche PB editorials and much more ... (almost 1/3 of the mag!)
Linear Mode
