Ever since early in my college career, I was taught that nudity is often artistic. Of course, it has to be “tasteful” according to art etiquette, but that’s a pretty subjective term. I even had an assignment as a 19 year old photography student to shoot a nude person.
But what’s the distinction between “artistic” nudity and “pornographic” nudity? Most people tell you that “you’ll know when you see it.” But again, isn’t that pretty stinking subjective?
For example, if a 12 year old boy sees an “artistic” nude photo, isn’t that pretty much good enough for him? For that matter, isn’t the Sears catalog good enough for him?
I have no idea what the steadfast criteria are, because I don’t think there are any. Many a controversial “artist” was accused of being a porn peddler only to be defended by the ACLU. That ultimately extends the definition of artistic nudity farther and farther, and makes “pornography” a small and extreme subset. It’s only porn if it depicts a sex act, right?
That’s what we learned…
I’m not saying I know the answer to the question. What do you all think?