By porn i consider the picture involving explicit sexuality act, i see a "Nude pic" or a "pin-up" (even with multiple character) as a more subtle picture :|

Nudity is inherently sexual and sexuality is subjective so while you can find a representation that is not sexual to you it may be sexual to someone else. Whether it counts as porn in my opinion is more a question of if the sexuality is explicit or implied. For tasteful nudity the sexuality is always implied. If the focus is on genitals or some action that's seen as sexual then it becomes explicit.

I STRONGLY dislike the assumption that nudity is inherently sexual.

*nods* The nude figure is beautiful and natural, and not inherently sexual, but thanks to Puritanism (which sadly still influences society and culture to an extent), nudity has been made into something sexual and even offensive. :(

I think you misunderstood the point... I didn't say nudity was inherently porn or something offensive.

You stated that "nudity is inherently sexual" and in tasteful nudes "the sexuality is always implied."

I believe this to be false. Nudity is NOT inherently sexual and the definition of "tasteful nude" is "nonsexual nudity." I'm not offended; I just believe your statement to be inaccurate. The state of dress of the subject of a piece has nothing to do with its sexuality. A fully clothed figure can be more sexual than a nude one if depicted in the right pose or viewed by the right person. If a person views innocent, nonsexual genitals and immediately thinks about sex, then the problem is not with the piece but with the immaturity and overly sensitive perceptions of the viewer.

Something being sexual and me having an irresistible urge to bang it after just looking at it are two very different things in my mind, but whatever floats your boat I guess... I did also say sexuality is subjective.

I think that was an observation more a than a statement... a lot of people do actually assume that nudity = sex, as sad as such an assumption is. :-P

I agree with you there.. many people do make that assumption and it IS a very sad and, to me, offensive one to make. XD

I see what you mean, and I think that's why a lot of XIX century paintings (especially the ones involving naked children posing as angels and such) raise more than an eyebrow today. A lot of people tend to automatically read sexuality into nudity, even though the artist may not mean it. In a way we are hardwired to think like that and it takes rational effort to avoid this kind of automatic reaction.

It also takes effort on the artist's part, if an artist wants to keep his pictures non-porny then he or she needs to take into account that many people assume that nudity has to do with sex, and needs to communicate that his pictures are not meant to be merely arousing. There are even some technical tricks to do that, I'll list a few of them I've noticed in the followup journal.

watch the comments, do they complain? thats tastefull.
tons of murry purry stuff and spooge? thats porn.

That's certainly a useful rule on the interwebs. X-D

It goes from Nude to Porn the moment there is touching the genitals or erections. -Or if the picture clearly focuses ON something sexual.
Examples: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5305481/ No genitals, but you know what is going to happen.

This for Me is tasteful nudity: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8225184/ As well as this one: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5426167/

I'm flattered that you fancy my "Figure drawing class" style nudes :)

I would never commission you if I didn't like your art, dear. ;3

I'd like to see more artists do that kind of pictures. Sometimes they even come though as more lively than detailed pictures right because they have the typical look of life drawings, that's something I strive to achieve myself with my sketches.

I believe its all in the emotions of the characters in the drawing/picture. If its a more intimate looking picture, such as a female laying down, legs closed to one side, breasts showing and looking sideways, that seems to me like the picture is meant for someone special because she isnt showing off. If she has her legs spread to show her crotch, chest puffed out and head leaning back, that constitutes as porn because she is taking effort to being sexy and being provocative.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9016661/ This to me is porn because the look in the eyes, the positition and the fact she is trying to be sexy.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8858905/ This is tasteful, and again I point to the eyes, the position and she looks like its just a normal picture. She isnt trying to be sexy at all.

to me porn is either nudity with arousement, or the downright act of sexual intercourse.

erotic is nudity with displaying, like laying there like being unaware they be watched, but still bringing their best parts out there. this can be nude or clothed, though I can't find much erotic with a tuxedo. :)

non-erotic nudity is tough. nothign showing, and obviously not displaying while doing something else... this one is really tough to answer. because the nudity itself works in erotic ways.

Ok, here's my view: Tasteful nudity (IMO) is strictly that, as seen (generally without any complaint by the public) in statues and monuments in parks, the paintings of the Old Masters, etc. No sexual/suggestive acts involved, but only bared breasts and/or genitals, and no erections or spread labia. Erotica (IMO) is "suggestive" imagery that doesn't actually depict sex or masturbation (more like "pin-ups", and can range from tasteful to kinky), and porn (IMO) is anything that actually depicts sex in any form, masturbation, erections, spread labia, cunnilingus/falatio/analingis, and/or sexual fluids/secretions.

I agree with this exactly, with the edition that porn may also include nudes with a strong focus on the genitals, such as widely spread legs on a female with her vulva in the foreground of an image, and also nudes with obscene poses such as pelvic thrusts, any pose where the hands touch genitals or move other body parts to make the genitals easier to view, or with the girl on her knees facing away from the viewer, etc.

*nods to that* Agreed.

That's very comprehensive and mostly matches with my own ideas. I think most artists who have delved a bit into art history and life drawing have figured out that bare genitals are not a big deal by themselves (much less in contemporary art).

I'm quite interested in exceptions though, e.g. what can make an explicit depiction of sex look tasteful enough to be considered more than mere porn. Maybe that's just not possible in Western culture - the only widely accepted depictions of sex I can think of are very stylized stuff like Picasso's works. But it happens in other cultures, ancient Indian art being the most obvious example, and such art seems to follow a few actual guidelines. I'll list a few of them I have observed in the next journal.

Oh yes, I'm not advocating rules or anything. I'm just interested in learning what people think is generally acceptable or not. On the internet it doesn't matter much but if you make actual paintings and hang them around it becomes very relevant.

Porn is juicy. If there are bodily fluids involved then it's porn :V

Tasteful

P0rn: quando sono presenti in bella vista erezioni/eiaculazioni e genitali femminili eccitati e bagnatissimi, attributi maschili e femminili sproporzionati;
- Non considero proprio p0rn due che si accoppiano se non si 'vede molto', ma mi dà fastidio guardare, mi pare di essere una voyeur che si fa gli affari degli altri XD
- Non considero neanche p0rn i vari fetish, ma non mi piacciono e non sono di mio gusto.

Per il resto, un nudo disegnato (anche maschile) non mi turba, basta che tenga le mani a posto. X3

Nota:
Generalmente evito di favvare tutto ciò che è esplicitamente p0rnaccioso o solo suggestivo (a gusto mio), ma con questa pic per esempio sono stata parecchio combattuta http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7431624/ X'D perchè pur essendo un'ammucchiata è un disegno favoloso... :I

Un po' di voyeurismo è insito in tutta l'arte mi sa... X-D Quell'immagine è notevole, infatti mi stupisco sempre di quante immagini sconce ultra-elaborate si trovino nel furry fandom, in certi casi la quantità di lavoro che ci è entrata basta da sola a distinguerle dai porni qualsiasi. (Che poi non è una novità, certi fumetti europei tipo quelli del filone "Metal Hurlant" contenevano scene sconce elaborate che erano solo leggermente meno esplicite di queste scene furry... per non parlare di autori come Manara o di certi autori bravissimi di manga erotici... ma scene realistiche ed elaborate come quella è davvero difficile trovarle fuori dall'arte furry oggi.)

>Un po' di voyeurismo è insito in tutta l'arte mi sa<
Beh, in tutti i casi in cui sono coinvolte morbide figure femminili direi di dì XD

>scene realistiche ed elaborate come quella è davvero difficile trovarle fuori dall'arte furry oggi<
Il bello è appunto che 'la volgarità' rappresentata si perde o si bilancia perfettamente con la qualità dell'immagine, talmente tanto che non si capisce bene dove finisce il p0rn e comincia il capolavoro artistico... o viceversa. X3

I enjoy discussions like this. It's been a topic ever since Edouard Manet's Odalisque (Olympia) outraged the Parisian sensibilities, with its shocking display of brazen pornography. What made it porn? She had a cat at her feet instead of the expected dog, and several other clues in the picture which made it clear she was a courtesan, and not just abiding innocently in a seraglio. Since the dividing line is dependent on the reaction of the viewer, I think it's an impossible distinction to make. I've known people who can't look at the Washington Monument without thinking "phallic symbol" (which is probably true, but it doesn't have to be a turn-on). that suggests that the most prurient and easily shocked are also those with the most hypersexualized and deviant imaginations. They see porn EVERYWHERE.

I personally decide whether something is porn if the primary focus is on sexual characteristics. I don't really "get" the porn aspect of non-sexual situational pictures (like two people sitting next to each other, one wearing a dog collar, the other holding the leash, but otherwise non-sexual).

As to whether I can draw nudes which are non-sexual to me, absolutely. Every time I work on anatomy studies, I'm doing exactly that. I'm not focusing on the sexual aspect of my subject, but on muscle groups, bone, hard and soft, mass and light. Been in many life-drawing classes with nude models, and I'm not thinking "huh huh, sex" I'm thinking "THREE MINUTES LEFT!!!" Whether they're tasteful or not depends on how my skill is going that day.

Yep, the context is really important even in contemporary art where almost everything goes. See for example the controversy around this South African painting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sp.....%28painting%29
Any direct reference to sex for whatever purpose draws a lot of attention.

I agree about what you write though I think there are actually porn undertones in a lot of non-sexual pictures nowadays, especially in advertising.

I also understand well the feeling about life drawing classes. X-D I draw a lot of nudes for exercise and study too. I think many beginner artists miss the importance that such exercise has for the artist's attitude in addition to the technical value. In my experience people aren't disturbed by images of nudity as much as they are by *poorly rendered* images of nudity - and this is especially true when the nude characters are anthro animals, which are already hard to grasp for a lot of prople. But good art is always more accepted even when the subject is questionable. In fact I think the ultimate test for tastefulness of a nude/erotic furry picture is showing it to people who know nothing about furry art and see how they react. I tried this a few times with interesting results.

Whether or not a nude piece is Porn or not depends on the mood and how the subject is displaying herself/himself. If the subject is showing their self off, purposefully posing to reveal their naughty bits, then that's closer to porn. If they are in a natural position, not personally putting emphasis on their genitalia, even if it's in view, that counts for a tasteful nude. The Aleshia piece you did for me was a tasteful nude in my opinion. Your recent 'Kiss my kitty butt' is definitively closer to porny erotica. A lot of it is actually the expression to me. Whether or not the character is purposefully titilating the audience or not can be seen in their face, and that alone can change a piece from tasteful nude to porn.

Those two examples of your artwork should do the trick. For further examples, some bits of  caribou !

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8694916/ : Very porny due to the pose and emphasis on her awesome bits.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7888175/ : Not porn, due to the lack of bodily emphasis on their parts and their expressions being focused elsewhere. It's a very natural piece which makes it tasteful in my opinion.

(That both of these are stream-sketches I commissioned is totally not the reason I picked these for reference...)

Lastly, there's nothing wrong with a little porn now and then. These are sexy characters and they deserve a chance to show that off now and then :) .

Yep, Sara knows very well how to gauge the amount of sexyness in pictures depending on what she wants to achieve. And I agree about the expression, that's something I can't control very well yet, but the expression and the overal tension or relaxedness of the pose are probably the most important criteria to tell porn apart from more "generally acceptable" nudes for me. I'll go into more detail in the next journal.

I consider porn purposefully erotic. tasteful nude means the bits and butts aren't the primary reason of its creation.

Whether something is erotic or pornographic depends on its intent rather then its actual content.

First let's look at some erotic examples
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4797934/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2107722/

Both of these may be considered tasteful nudity because their intent is more for the curious, the natural body is displayed for the viewer but the viewer isn't told or hinted that what they see is sexual. The artist has simply created art to show the natural beauty of the body. Something many people know how to admire.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2146320/ This example is the same as the above with its intent, the body of the subject is displayed for curious viewing purposes though his genitals cannot be seen in the current pose. Some may find this to be clean art and some might find this just as tantalizing as the above examples, the viewer is not hinted nor told how to look at the subject.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2153059/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2153176/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2153903/

These are all erotic pieces, they depict a sexual nature and sexual acts but they also display a good deal of emotion and passion and seem to center more so around the feelings of the subjects rather then the act of sex. The third example is still an erotic like the other two even though no genitals or breasts can be seen and the subjects appear to be finished with sex or gearing towards sex.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7758085/
This is yet another example of the complexity that goes into an erotic piece of art
When something is erotic it tends to send a more complex message to the viewer other then "activate boner" "cream your panties"

Porn is another matter
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4014827/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7793321/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7262565/

Porn tends to have a pretty clear goal, the main goal of porn is to reach out and flare desire in the viewer. Examples of this tend to focus of genitals or the area of penetration and the act of sex tends to be very forward, aggressive, and wild. Most of the emotions you see, if any, tend to complement the act going on in the picture but the focus is on the act of sex or a sexual behavior.

Porn is about seeking, finding, and sating lust and desire
Erotic is about the experience of the body and the emotional complexity of sexual nature.

Thank you, these are good examples of each case. I noticed Dark Natasha's art back when she appeared in the fandom right because many of her racier picture have a strong focus on something else which is going on besides of the sex, such as predator/prey tension or the artfulness of the scene.

(Altough shifting the focus away from the sex can come across as fake if it's overdone. That's why I don't usually like Blotch's art: sometimes the scenes feel like they are out of place and even though they happen in grand sceneries they might as well happen in a bedroom or anywhere else. But that's just a personal taste, the Blotche girls obviously know what feeling they are aiming for.)

If it's overtly sexual, it can't be tasteful. Someone above posted a picture with a female character with their legs wide open; that is overtly pornographic. What else would you call a women waving her fish taco in your face?

Traditionally, the direct display of genitals, and a direct display of sexuality is considered where "Tasteful" ends and pornography begins. The intent of the subject could also be considered a deciding factor. Are they clearly displaying their genitals to you in such a way that is considered a clear sexual advance or display? It's likely pornography. Is the display of genitalia simply a by-product of the artistic process? Then it's tasteful.

Historically, tasteful nudes are "indirect" nudes, with a turn of a hip, turn of the shoulder, or the draping of a blanket or cloth to conceal direct viewing of genitals or to act as concealment to hide the sexual or sensual parts of the body. What is considered a sexual or sensual bodypart has changed over time; it used to be the wrists that were sensual, arms, and the neck. Then it was the ankles; ankles used to be so scandalous! Then it was the legs, the butt.

And now people have such little sexual repression or restraint that the whole body is a sexual thing in their eyes, so it's probably best to use "traditional" tasteful guidelines, so to speak.

To follow up with my last post, here are some demonstration images for my opinion of sexual versus sensual or tasteful.

I could consider the following three images to all be tasteful if not sensual imagery.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8753200/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8855869/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8484978/


All of these images are overtly sexual and not 'tasteful', even if they might be considered sexually "tame".
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8126568/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8072745/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7937737/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7600952/

I agree for all pictures save the Vantid one, though I don't think the genitals themselves are the reason the last three pictures look porny - the characters have an inviting expression and to me they would look a bit on the porn side even if they were clothed. Depiction of genitals has always been fairly common in life drawing and academic painting, though admittedly it takes very skilled aritsts to keep it tasteful:
http://academicnudes19thcentury.blo.....mic-nudes.html

I was hesitant about that one, especially 'cause it's another pic of my dear one. I'm on the line about it really.

Genitals have been common in life drawing because it's life, but generally they are of reserved size and focus, and almost an afterthought when it comes to the whole of the artwork.

Thanks for the link. I always appreciate art. :)

Honestly it depends on your culture, your upbringing and your personal values.

http://gloriousbritannia.files.word.....erinifaun.jpeg

This greek sculpture to me is porn more than art.

while I consider this more art than erotic

http://ah-teen.deviantart.com/favou.....et=24#/d5gir38

Why? Honestly I have no good way of answering. All I can say is "I know it when I see it"

I too think some of the art which survived from the past was obviously meant to be arousing, and not as highly meaningful as textbooks describe it - for example I find many XIX century painting to be erotic or even pornographic, and in some cases there are hints that that was clearly the artist's intention.

I'd really really love to speak with an ancient Greek or Roman though or spend a day in their cities to see what was their actual attitude towards the nudes. :-P I'm sure we cannot fully figure it out it today, and there would be cool surprises if we could actually observe daily life back then.

To quote Tom Lehrer:

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

Even the most tasteful of nudity is going to have some degree of erotic subtext.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3915251/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5128726/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5018569/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2106343/

Whereas a simple shift of pose turns the pic downright naughty!
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5899434/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4378212/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4862398/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6453470/

A more direct example:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/794515/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6228334/
Same character, same setting, one pose mature, one adult. Main difference was whether her legs were apart or not... :)

Hope this helps!

I second Swandog's comment! ^^;

Tasteful nudity is innocent, such as seen in classic works of art, statuary, and anatomy references. This is nudity safe for general audiences.

Erotica is nudity or even partial clothing that creates the suggestion of sex or sexy thoughts. This is PG-13 or R rated nudity.

Pornography is genital-centric, and is M or X rated.

There's exceptions and I'm not entirely consistent, but the test I often use is whether it seems casual or romantic to me. That is, whether they don't draw attention to the nudity. Casual's easy enough, that they happen to be nude but don't think anything of it. "Romantic" as I define it is any sort of embrace, kiss, or other intimacy with two furs. If there's a sense of love which overpowers the sense of nudity, then it's fine. This applies even in the case when they are having sex. It can go pretty far just as long as it's more about love. Funny enough, in most cases I'll only detect love there if the characters are smiling. I was never a fan of the "lustful" look, so it's pretty easy to change my opinion of a picture by just changing the facial expressions.

It gets more complicated if there's just one character. Given how common it is to draw males as anatomically correct, I'll consider how aroused the subject is, then I'll look at their eyes. If they're not aroused, I allow it regardless of other circumstances. If they're aroused or seem to be showing off, there has to be a blatant sexual glint in their eyes before I'll mark it as adult. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to eyes, seeing how I usually interpret half-closed lids and a smile as being in a state of bliss.

This same criteria is what makes me give a free pass to tanukis, provided it's not of a sexual nature. Partly because it's a cultural thing, and partly because 10 minutes of Pom Poko is enough to make you forget about it.

The only time I do start to mark a pic as porn is if there's masturbation (rare exceptions exist if they're thinking of someone else at the time) or it gets messy or sizes become ridiculous.

For what I'd call tasteful nudity, that's if attention's not being drawn to it or if you can't really see it (which is how I'd say some sex pics could be classified as that). As soon as there's arousal or showing off, it no longer applies, but even then it won't necessarily be porn to me - it becomes porn when it's all about the sexual act.

Examples of nude art that feel completely innocent and non-sexual... ok.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6036664/ (male, no focus on the nudity)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5778426/ (two males, I only see love between these two, nothing else)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5005481/ (two males. Again casual nudity, it's not the focus)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5478255/ (female. Besides, there shouldn't be anything sexual about a shower)
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7600590/ (female. To me, the face still seems just innocent enough that the intent seems casual)

This one's borderline in that it might be sexual, but again, it seems more about the love so I give it a pass (male+female): http://www.furaffinity.net/view/109858/

Lol! So true, tanukis should all get free passes. X-D

>If there's a sense of love which overpowers the sense of nudity, then it's fine.<

That's a good way to look at situations with more than one character and I agree with your examples, even with the last one (I'm thinking that if it were a photo with humans it could easily be considered an art photo and be on the cover of a coffe table book).

I <3  elfantastico 's art by the way, he draws very beautiful bodies.

I wanted to say exactly what  swandog said XP

The short answer is that it's up to community standards! Depending on where you are and who's judging, it can change.

The rest is really down to situation. A piece could be completely innocent with one facial expression, and deeply erotic if you switched said facial expression!

To really nail it down, though, I'd say it turns into something adult/erotic (though not necessarily porn) when the genitals are the focus or the interaction between character(s) with each other or themselves is sexual in nature. A depiction of a body that is in full detail/uncensored doesn't turn it into porn or erotica -- sexual implication (erotica) or interaction (porn) are the key factors, or so I feel.

The best example of a 'non-sexual' nude is probably one of the best known: Michaelangelo's David. In the sculpture he's nude, of course, but the focus of the piece is on the body, on David's stare (originally pointed towards Rome), and on the icon of David himself.

I see the difference in community/cultural standards a lot in fact. Here in Italy the attitude towards depictions of nudity is quite different from the US attitude I pick up from internet, the attitude is more lax but also more discriminating. Full female nudes in paintings, comics etc. and bare breasts/asses on magazine covers are widely accepted, but male nudes are much less accepted (unless they are classical art or other "officially accepted" fine art of some kind). Full female nudity was also accepted in mainstream movies well through the '80s. Because of this I sometimes get puzzled by the way people react to nude art on internet.

I think it's half culture (i.e. homophobia/fear of the male form/whatever) and half the fact that honestly, a penis just sticks out more. People seem to object to them more in general -- but the rest of the male form is okay and maybe even more celebrated. I suspect it might just be because female genitals are usually more hidden in a piece not meant to expose them, and also a little because breasts have a kind of maternal/fertile vibe to them that doesn't necessarily scream SEX.

I kind of have a problem with our culture here in North America (in Canada it's almost the same as the U.S. though we're a little more relaxed) being so at home with gruesome violence, horrid language, and depictions of controversy in art -- but then the general public can turn around and make sex, religious insensitivity, and expressive music a huge taboo. I'm not a fan of it, but I think it kind of reflects American culture, which overshadows everything here.

Old style Playboy: Tasteful Nudes
Penthouse: porn.

For me it's the line of suggesting and actually acting. Here are some examples http://mafiagame.wikia.com/wiki/Pla.....azines#Gallery

those are all cheeky/playfully tasteful, to my perception

- How do you decide wheter a nude picture (furry or not) counts as porn?

Generally, the fact that the focus is ON the fact that the character is nude or is focusing on things such as groping their breasts, stroking their penis, etc.

- What exactly sets "tasteful" nudity/erotica apart from porn?

I basically just answered that.

- Can you make some examples of nude art which feel absolutely innocent and non-sexual to you? Can you point out why?

A nude figure relaxing in a grassy field.

A scantly clad trible person.

I like nude art in an artistic way with elegant poses and i like nudity with sexual poses as well so it don't matter to me

To me, porn is when any sexual activity is involved. Which includes having sex with someone, but even masturbating.
The rest, is just nudity.

An erotic subject may be 'arousing' to the viewer but not necessarily porn. That may include even dressed subjects, I guess.

While a nude subject, but which isn't arousing to the viewer, isn't really erotic, but just a nude subject.

One of the categories (porn) falls into how the pic is drawn and what it contains. The other (erotic) is about how the viewer perceives it.

Several people have already fragmentarily stated my opinion on the matter, but since it is such a tidy and inviting questionnaire, I'll go ahead anyway.

The first two questions overlap in that they both deal with setting the two categories apart. There are two things to consider when assessing a piece of visual artwork that features nude people: context and purpose.

If the composition and the character's appearance don't bear any narrative meaning, and the sole remaining value of the picture is the erotic excitement derived from observing the piece, than the piece is erotic by the principle of elimination. If the entire composition is fashioned to highlight the centerpiece nude character, and said character is presented in explicitly aroused disposition, then the piece in question is erotic by design.

If, on the other hand, the ambient goings-on in the picture are meaningful beyond being mere scenery, than even an outright copulatory process could be viewed as non-erotic in nature, e. g. a Sexual Education class scene from "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life", where an uptight British teacher engages has very dry and mechanical sex with an assistant to demonstrate the basic mechanics to the bored students, who go on being bored out of their skull throughout the display. A portrayed intercourse between two or more metaphorical personifications of concepts or entities could be viewed as conceptual first and sexual second. A slice-of-life picture of people having sex isn't necessarily pornographic if the point of the piece is to capture the act with a naturalistic honesty, without focusing on the arousing elements, like some awkward pimpled teenagers having trouble with bedsheets getting in the way, or a strained intercourse of an unhappily married couple, with both parties looking past their partners as they go through the motions.

As for the more direct examples, these two pictures of yours are good examples of pornographic pieces: the explicitly aroused characters are clearly the foci of their respective pieces, and their sultry glances and dispositions invite the viewer to participate in the proceedings. There is a humorous undercurrent to the Hyleren picture, but the erotic qualities are too robust to be sidelined by it.

Your Kirins of Shrouded Sky and Earth, while mostly unclad, have so much mythological stuff enveloping them, that one cannot help perceiving their environment as a stage for a sombre ceremony of some sort, with any arousal feeling awkwardly out of place. Of the non-erotical multiple character pieces, this one serves as a good example, because two ladies helping each other dress up in a boudoir isn't inherently erotic, unless the voyeuristic interest of an audience member gets piqued. Your glorious series "The Treasure" is an interesting example of how one elaborate enough piece can be viewed as either porn or non-erotic material depending on perspective: while there is plenty of obviously erotic visuals within the story, showcasing the most pleasing angles and highlighting the lustful emotional feedback, the story arc as a whole can be viewed as a slice-of-life presentation of those two characters exploring the new levels of intimacy, and it wouldn't be out of place in the middle of a longer narrative. The witty chatting and mundane activities depicted in the series also help even out the eroticism percentage of the tale, giving it depth beyond a mere backdrop for the sex.

Thank you for continuing to bring new art to life, and forgive my lack input. Good luck and steady motivation to you !

In a nutshell: What defines the image/creation is intent.
You can take two drawings of the same subject and just slightly alter the pose and it switches from a non-sexual nude to a mild variation of porn.
A sculpture of a completely naked man just standing is just a naked man, but change it so that he is playing with his balls in a show-off/teasing way and you've got porn.

It's all about what the author wants the audience to think. If you want to make a tasteful nude, it is a tasteful nude. If you want to make porn, it is porn. Sure, a minority can still see tasteful nudes as porn, but it is an exception from the rule.

For me, it has to display an emotion. It usually crosses the line for me when the focus is on all the naked parts and jizz, or sex for sex (and thus, "fucking"). So to me, this is artistic erotica, while this is just porn. They're done by the same artist, and both have skill, but their intention differs.

it's a pity one can't fave journals. I don't have a coherent enough opinion to weigh in comprehensively, but Bedroom Eyes and/or genitals prominence

To me, a tasteful nude has a completely naked subject, but shows none or little of the naughty bits. Maybe a partial boob here and there, but no visibly explicit genitalia. Porn ranges from nudity with explicit sexual content (aka naughty bits) to of course, intercourse.

But maybe that's just me C:

Porn is in the apparent behavior of the subject or the implied behavior of the viewer. If either behavior is sexual, it is porn. If it is ambiguous or nonsexual, or even just nonaction (e.g. relaxing), then it is tasteful. In the case of the perspective, a view up a skirt is probably porn if in order to get such a perspective, one would need to be behaving in ways that wouldn't be considered appropriate in public, even if the subject portrayed isn't doing anything sexual.

At least that's how I see it.

Hm. This one has been buzzing around my head lately, by this one I mean the whole...well.

Sometimes I make comments to friends that "I draw porn for a living", I say it jokingly, because when it comes down to it, I don't feel what I draw is porn. But then again, my lifestyle is not normal. I mean, last weekend I went to a BDSM play party that involved rooms with furniture and equipment and lots of naked people and porn on monitors. I saw a lot of things going on, and lots of things going in things. For some people, that amount of nudity alone is freaky. For some people it's...well my own reaction is "whatever" (I guess art model classes in college helped.). Despite all this nudity and sexual and sensual and normal things going on (people talking, people hugging, people fucking) I'm not OMFG TURNED ON WANNA BOINK NOW! No, I have my interests and tastes. That's hot, this is not. I think the same can be said for imagery, and often is.

Personally, I view porn as the fast-food industry. <--How something is marketed plays a big part in that for me. I respect porn stars as people who do what they want, and express themselves as such. I think the porn aspect more or less comes in how it's presented and sold - mass market, tailored to the 'meat' of the situation (ie blatant display, emphasis on sexual contact/sex itself). The focus is on the getting off.

Artistic to me is engaging of more than just my visual and genital attention. Do I think? Do I fantasize? Does my *mind* play a more active part in my experience? As personal as I'm going to get, I went into BDSM with the mindset that sex is the goal, and the societal conditioning of female sex lives as : get him off, you're a vehicle. (my upbringing wasn't diverse as some are getting these days.) I found that BDSM people quickly squashed that rumor and expectation, and I found it about the JOURNEY of pain/pleasure. Enjoying the build up as much as if not more than the release. I think art can mirror this, ie what is porn is about popping off and the erotic art is about engaging. It's all relative, of course, I find and try to imbed my ideas of a sexy time in my art - I do a lot of pin-ups, teasing, - emotional connection. Even when drawing solo stuff, as weird as it may sound, I think about the character's sexuality and try to express that, rather than primary, tunnel-vision focus on a viewer's arousal.

My bf works at a porn store. I largely dislike it the products in the store itself, especially the videos. HOWEVER, there is a big push toward de...pornifying.... porn and making it about natural, happy, holistic experiences. I'm all about that. It's just...so much more fulfilling, imo. But then again that ties into my thoughts on being me and being human (nurture yourself, cultivate your soul. cook food because it's delicious.). Idk I find focus on sensuality and sexuality like eating a homecooked meal that you love vs. porn as a quick bite out to eat because you're hungry.

Sorry if I'm all over the place, gotta work and not type too much, and this kind of conversation ties into so much else that's out there for me, it's hard to finite it.

Mm, I just want to add my thought at reading the second thread started by xarg, ;) I think what they were getting at made lots of sense. The problem with the distinction also lies in the fact our modern culture thinks of sex as an impure, naughty no-no thing that is somehow unnatural, as odd as that sounds. The nude form is inherently sexual because any mature mind is going to take some glances at the bits and have a thought one way or another - and that's perfectly natural, it's part of biology and there's nothing odd or wrong with it. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's porn though, I don't know too many folks that start fapping at art museums. ;)

Point is, (more on the topic) even the act of sex itself can be innocent. It's only porn I think if it's designed with that purpose in mind in the first place. And there's nothing wrong with porn, either. ;3