Question on Erotic Art and Nudism

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 7:21 PM GMT
    I was wondering, if for male models...does it look better to have just a small or average penis or something kinda extreme? Im wondering because in my opinion if I look at a photography of a model thats supposed to be artistic but then all the atention goes to "that place" because of its unproportional dimensions then it goes from being art to pornography no matter how I look at it...

    thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 7:31 PM GMT
    Like the men in the sauna, there is a good deal of fluffing going on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 7:55 PM GMT
    It's all a matter of perspective. If a person is just focusing on the size of the cock, then they're ignoring it as art and viewing it as porn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 8:17 PM GMT
    I love this classic though...

    davidMichelangelo.jpg

    anyway whatever. I just had a stupid doubt and I said it out loud.

    thanks for the responses icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 10:27 PM GMT
    just show us what you're working with charlitos...and we'll let you know if it's too big (or small).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 10:34 PM GMT
    David's penis is small because it is a physical manifestation of his ability to control his sexual desire. Small genitalia is a Grecian trademark. But, like you say, it is an amazing piece.
  • Matia79

    Posts: 215

    May 01, 2009 10:47 PM GMT
    Just to clarify on the above . . . the statues and art depicted in Greek and Roman art were done in order to emphasize the body as an artform and minimize the sexuality in the pieces themselves. Those in the portraits/statues are usually performing a sporting event, war/wargames, or performing another physical activity...or, in the case of David, emphasizing the ideal physical form.
    The erotic art from ancient Greece and Rome (yes, there are some believe it or not) generally shows proportionate penis size as the artist intentionally wants you to see the goods.

    That being said Charlitos, it's important to remember with art that it may be subjective, but the artist has a very good idea of what he'd like the audience to focus on. If you find yourself drawn to a spot on a painting or a photograph, it's because the artist or photographer has drawn your eye there on purpose. There are tonnes of tricks people use...icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2009 10:56 PM GMT
    Maybe that's the reason a lot of artist choose models with ahem smaller genitals because of the confusion it might provoke.
    But on the other hand, for it to be classified as porn there has to be an obvious erotic purpose and/or action, such as holding his penis midmasturbation or intercourse or fellatio with a partner model.

    There's a thin line between pornography, erotica and art. Michaelangelo's David is art, but i'm sure some people get turned on by looking at him regardless of his "size." Does that reason alone make his work pornographic? No, it's all in the perspective of the viewer, how the work in question makes him respond at the moment.

  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    May 01, 2009 11:24 PM GMT
    But look at the art of Robert Mapplethorpe. A lot of his photography featured men who were endowed. A lot of it was considered controversial at the time, but there is a lot of beauty in photos, even when he explored the extreme -- in many ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2009 12:42 AM GMT
    Acutally, the Greeks generally preferred small dicks and the Romans liked big 'uns, equating them with masculine power. Read "Satyricon," which is in great part satire about Greeks by Romans, centered around the cult of Priapus, a macrophallic god. He was part of the Greek pantheon, too, but attained much more important status with the Roman size queens.

    Here's one popular image of him:

    800px-Pompeya_er%C3%B3tica5.jpg



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2009 1:23 AM GMT
    Ya, draw a line from Maplethrope through Jack Smith through Andy Warhol through Kenneth Anger and porn is as big an influence on artists as anything.

    Or take a look at the incredible work that was needed to turn Tom of Finland's porn into art.

    porn is art. art is porn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2009 1:42 AM GMT
    ObsceneWish said "Satyricon," which is in great part satire about Greeks by Romans, centered around the cult of Priapus, a macrophallic god.

    The "Satyricon"'s hero, Encolpius, is pursued by the wrath of Priapus just as Aeneas is pursued by the wrath of Juno though the "Aeneid."
    The "Satyricon" seems to be pansexual -- all the characters are apparently ready to do anything with anybody, men, women, hermaphrodites, you name it.
  • jgymnast733

    Posts: 1783

    May 02, 2009 2:06 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidLike the men in the sauna, there is a good deal of fluffing going on.

    Opps, you caught me.......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2009 5:26 AM GMT
    In my opinion... I wouldn't care. I suspect many other artists wouldn't either. I go to figure drawing classes.... not photography--but they are essentially related.

    When drawing a nude person, the artist shouldn't care about what the model looks like. I've drawn cruvey women, buff guys, and very skinny women with large breats. Some women have extensive pubic hair--others do not.

    Everyone is different. And that is the point--to grow as an artist one needs to draw and photograph many different body types. This helps the artist to over step the bounds of what is stereotypically attractive and concentate on form, movement, shape, shadows, and how nicely the drawing flows together.

    If I saw a hot guy with a huge penis (8in +) who was buff and had an adorable face... I really wouldn't care. When drawing you are in a different mindset. Normally I find a naked woman's body to be "yucky," yet when I draw a nude woman, i don't thinlk about that--I can find her form to be very attractive (point: there is a difference between naked and nude).

    So if a buff guy with a 3in dick was modeling for me, and then an overwiehgt guy with a 7in dick modeled for me... I wouldn't really care. I care about expressing the figure in my drawing... not what the figure happens to look like.

    That is just the way I look at it. Yes in the back Iof my mind I may think, "Damn that guy is hot!" But that is where I keep it. I am there to draw and learn... not hit on the model lol. It also makes one have an appreciateion for all different body tyoes. Some people are indeed disproportional. Sometimes, that is not their fault--guys can't natuarally control their dick size. I also respect those who model who aren't "genetically gifted" "down there".. They don't care... why should i? icon_wink.gif


    I'm not sure f that answers your question... or if you are specifically talking about photography for erotic books.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 02, 2009 10:50 AM GMT
    It depends on the message the "art" is supposed to portray
    in male nude art the penis is as much a part of the body as is a chest or an ass
    If the penis is unusually small or large it's going to distract from the rest of the body
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 02, 2009 11:03 AM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 saidIn my opinion... I wouldn't care...


    <3 Will you marry me? ;)