What's your opinion of nude art? Is it porn or beauty?

Where do you make the distinction? For instance, the statue of naked David in the Louvre: some consider it a work of beauty, others might be offended. I personally am not offended. What's your thoughts? Where does art become porn?What's your opinion of nude art? Is it porn or beauty?
While sometimes the distinction between art and pornography can walk a very fine line, I always think of art as either celebrating the true human form in all its beauty or otherwise illustrating some related concept while pornography is solely intended to titillate the viewer (he or she 'gets off' on it) with little respect for the other aspects of art (composition, linearity, etc). In a way, intentional 'art' can play a role in the construction of pornographic scenes in that the men depicted are almost always shown as some virile modern-day Adonis with bulging muscles (a constructed hypermasculine ideal) and the women are airbrushed, made-up, and have undergone extensive plastic surgery (constructed hyperfemininity). You rarely or never see everyday men and women, while you often will in other art (such as images created from nude life modeling).





Even though some of the same techniques are in play, I would hesitate to call pornography 'art' in the sense as it is often highly derivative and is solely constructed for maximal titillation rather than true artistic value.What's your opinion of nude art? Is it porn or beauty?
I think it depends on the art. I assumed you were talking about modern art when I first read this. The distinction people have to make is then sex and nudity wasn't something ';bad.'; They were just a part of life. In the city of Pompeii there are actually preserved murals and other artistic objects with people actually having sex. Now that would be considered porn by most.





Speaking from a modern art stand point I believe it depends on the art piece itself. If the artist goes out of his way to be pornographic or offensive and there is nothing else behind it, no beauty to it then yes I consider it porn. Then we have people like Luis Royo though who has been criticized for his art basically being porn but I don't see it that way, I see it as beautiful pieces of art that can tell a story. On that note I suppose it depends a lot on the viewer also.
Nude art and nude photography are beautiful and natural forms of expression. The distinction is made while the art is created and the photographs are taken. If the creator, photographer, or model means for the subject to be seen as erotic, or if they mean it to be seen as natural beauty, determines if it is porn or art.
Depends on the intentions.... If it depicts human nature and the human physique to reveal artistic passion then art but I it's raunchy then no.. But then again it depends on who looks at it.... a 12 year old boy is not going to look at nudity the same way as a 30 year old woman.
Beauty, I think being naked is so over-rated. They're just body parts and everyone has them. The only reason people get uncomfortable is because they're so used it being covered up and don't think of it as a normal body parts.
If you're referring to Michelangelo's famous nude sculpture of David, that's on display not at the Louvre in Paris, but rather in Florence, Italy. (The Louvre has many other nudes, however.)
It depends on how you look at it.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so while some do find nude art offending, others think that it's a form of artistic expression
Art becomes porn when its posed sexually. If its a painting or sculpture, i believe its not porn. But if its photography, then yes its porn
i agree, it depends on how its done. in a work by Da Vinci, it's art, in a playboy, it's porn
Back then it was no such thing as 'porn' the body was respected and hallowed not put up as an object.





Today, most of that kind of art IS porn.
it really would depend on the pose %26amp; look of the photo to determine art or porn.there is obviously a HUGE difference
beauty
its art to me, i do not get offended by it.