Art And Pornography.

How do i go about saying this in the most accurate way i can.

I Utterly Despise When People Consider All SuicideGirls Photo-shoots to be Art.

Before i continue, there is much due credit to be given. I believe the concept of SG is wonderful. I believe that not only is it an amazing way to have people recognize beauty as it isnt traditional seen, but also as a beautiful way of self-expression for the models. Suicide Girls brought to the world a beauty that i dont believe has ever before been seen, although one may argue brothels may have once portrayed something of similar fashion. Like i was previously stating, its nontraditional beauty, its sexy, its artistic, its captivating. Its art. Simply put. Right?

So, lets present an argument that has no real "right or wrong" tie to it.

Art Vs. Pornography

Art: Oxford English Dictionary Suggests: "The application of skill to the arts of imitation and design, painting, engraving, sculpture, architecture; the cultivation of these in its principles, practice, and results; the skillful production of the beautiful in visible forms."

Keeping in mind there are obviously numerous amounts of "art" forms, or explanations i could choose from (if you want the link to what im looking at you need to have the dictionary or have a subscription to the site) although i do believe this one best represents the form of art we'll be examining.

Pornography: Oxford English Dictionary Also Suggests: "The explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; printed or visual material containing this."

I know what you're thinking... "Theres an argument to be made here... who's the one who gets to choose whether pornography is art or not?" This isnt what im going for, what im looking at here. What im examining is Suicide Girls skewed representation of what their "art" in about....25% of their collection of photo-shoots truly is.... pornography.

After getting over ourselves with the struggle of the theory of sex selling, we can start to look at the obvious facts. Yeah, they're naked, its going to turn guys on... guy's masturbate more frequently to visual stimulation, therefore, they keep coming back for more. ONCE AGAIN a generalization, but, come-on, in all seriousness we know its true to a degree. THEREFORE you can't run a successful business without knowing the fact that yes, sex sells.

NOW. You pay for a subscription, you have a "Tour", you have access to photo-shoots that "guests" do not, you get to see more "explicit" photos that "guests" do not. Not that im going to use this as a significant part of my argument but every porn site i've ever heard of... are ran identically.

I know these thoughts/arguments may be somewhat sparatic so forgive me. I'm also aware that NO i dont have a vast amount of art history/art theory to fall back on in this case, so i guess i have no concrete foundation for my reasoning behind my argument. But i just feel like SG is besmirching the idea of what is "art."

Art (in this case, to me) is shown through style, representation, and method (all synonyms obviously) but try to wrap your head around what i mean by this. To help explain what im trying say: Style, in the sense of the way something is shot, let it be lighting, props etc. Representation meaning, what the viewer believes to be displayed by the image. Method, the way in which the photo is taken, close-ups, angles, etc.

THIS presents the most uneasy, or questionable section of my argument. One could run away with some of the pictures that i view as pornography as being "shot in a specific way" or "displaying an emotion or feeling" which i guess i have to accept although, i do so with a bitter taste of resentment.

I believe there are photos that are displayed which lack a professional touch of style, representation, and method. Therefore, i argue, there are pictures that lack any ounce of credibility for what one would consider to be artistic. NOW that you've heard what theory, and foundation for my argument, lets move on to examples.

DISCLAIMER: The pieces used are a) obviously gross generalizations lacking all credibility for an overarching conclusion to this argument. B) single photos used from what presumably would be larger photo-shoots and c) two random pictures found off of google image that represent what i'm arguing.

SO, in proper essay format (not to consider this an essay, but a quazi-legitimate argument) the following will state arguments against my point, and promote the opposite view of what we are examining here.

Take this photo for example:

There are some "artistic" aspects of this photo which people may have help them classify this photo as being something other then pornography. For example, lets look at the style (falling back onto what how art is represented to me in the sense of photography such as this.) The lighting is pretty good, everything seems to be clear, the editing done to this photo suggest that the picture had some TLC in order to make it presentable for public consumption. The lighting makes it very precise and direct to what its showing (a girl). The girl has a latex glove on, suggesting sterilization, maybe a representation of being clean, although her face suggests maybe a naughtier side of being "clean."

Now to look at the representation of this photo, this would all be obviously an individuals perspective of what THEY see in the photo. So, trying to be as unbiased as possible, i see a beautiful woman who has been captivated in a very sexually erotic pose. The look on her face also suggests passion, in complete honesty it almost looks as though the woman is licking the tips of her upper teeth while most likely letting out a suitable moan for the moment. She also seems to be grazing her body with her left arm, which also happens to be eloquently laced with seemingly talented tattoos.

Method: This woman is the obvious centerpiece of this photo. It's close enough to display in vivid detail, all sections of her body, ranging from her eyes, lips, arms, chest, stomach, thighs, legs, hands etc. It also seems as though the girls chest is pressed outwards to suggest the attention being drawn to the natural center of the photo... the chest. It seems as though the models breasts suggest traditional (commercial) fashion. Meaning no surgery, no alterations. This chest, also, once again being displayed on a model who would in most instances be alienated in traditional fashion industries because of her tattoos, tongue peircing and fashion sense (black nail polish) THEREFORE having an traditional aspect of of a model displayed, on an individual who breaks traditional, fashion industry declared boundaries.

Now, for my rebuttal. Style. Well its nice to know any amature photographer who knows how to use low-grade lighting equipment and photo-shop CE can have their photo published on a revenue generating website, who, in all likelihood, got paid to take this photo. Style? What style? congrats, You had a model wear a latex glove and cover her vagina in order to add a touch of artistic flare to separate this from a completely 100% nude photo. Making the viewer stop and think for a brief moment, wow... the photographer obviously was aiming to display something here that wasnt just a completely nude model, until they realize... wait a minute... a college student probably shot this, neigh, a highschool student probably shot this. But i digress, maybe im being to hard on this photo for something probably shot out of entertainment, or practice. Who the hell gives me the right to cut up the style of this photo... i mean to do this only to prove a point, not to shatter the confidence of a photographer. Making me stuck up to even think the photographer of this photo even gives a shit about what i have to say about it, im a guy sitting in a dark room at 1:30 in the morning, ripping on a fucking photo because he feels his confidence in an argument he had earlier was slightly shaken out of being slightly uneducated on the topic... regardless... lets carry on.

Representation...this is a completely nude model, spread eagle on what one would be lead to believe is a table or a counter-top. She's touching her vagina to cover it from being displayed, once again, falling back on my theory of pseudoflare. She's moaning... doesnt anyone else see this... shes touching her vagina, moaning, with her tongue in her teeth spread eagle on a table/counter-top. This, to any viewer casually skimming the surface of this photo-shoot, would seem like a girl whos touching herself, and getting a fair-bit of pleasure out of it. Therefore, this would seem to be of pornographic representation.

There is no method to his photo. The eight year old who took it was lucky he got 85% of her body in the shot. Once again, i dont mean to specifically rip on the photographer, but the belief that THIS can even begin to be considered artistic. Its a close up shot, of her chest. The model is showing off the body she was given, and i respect that, but once again, this would lead a person into the belief that "hey, this seems kinda sexy" rather then "hey, this is a beautiful representation of the female body at leisure with itself."

I think i've stated quite well the point im trying to exploit here. There IS a significant difference between some of the photo-shoots on SG being artistic, and being straight up pornographic.

Just to make peace with those who might be thinking "Wow, way to pick the worst picture to represent SG" I will take a photo that I TRUELY believe to be artistic. For instance, i'll take a photo thats even a wee bit risk'ay for typical SG photo-shoots and use it to show what ART is, such as this:

This is an amazing shot for a variety of reasons, none of which allude to the possibility of even being able to be touched by the idea of pornography. To begin, the style of this photo is wonderful, the outfits (or lack there of) of the models dont allude to sex, so much as to hint at the idea of love. They're wearing almost nothing, also not displaying it as any type of fashion statement, but more so letting it resemble a sense of comfort and togetherness. Representation in this photo, once again is completely subjective, although, i will honor it by giving it an explanation of what i believe to be exhibited. This, like i previously stated, shows the raw, genderless, anticonformatist, pseudotypical embrace of one love person to another. The whole idea of two women sexually intertwined (legs in a completely mixed state) make it almost a slap in the face piece of art to those who even dare believe that gender should be any type of restraint to the concept of love. Finally, the methodology behind this photo speak for itself, its shot displaying a fury of legs which are almost impossible to separate, two women on the verge of meeting lips, shot from an angle which displays the whole canvas that makes their body, leaving room for little else to be let in, which doesnt matter anyways because whats important in this photo was obviously captured.

To finalize, i apologise to the photographer who took the first photo. I wouldn't know where to start in photography, so the fact that you even own one makes you substantially better then me in your art. I also would like to apologise to those who feel that SG weren't given a fair chance at proper representation. If you dont like what i've written, Well... quite frankly i dont care. This was my way of getting off my chest the way i feel about this website, and the way i disagree with how people are so quick to determine Suicide Girls as art. I enjoy this website quite a bit, and at the end of the day I am still a guy. Although i can safely say, avast thee who believes all of thee suicide girls as art, i disagreeeeee, YAR!