Talk:History of erotic photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:France
 France Portal
History of erotic photography is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.


Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Actual FAC discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Photography of female nudes before 1923

Contents

[edit] Email discussion

Here was a discussion I had with my friend Ethan by email. Should we change all the references to "pornography" in the article to "erotica"?

One thing to note...while vintage erotica may seem mild, the hardcore was
just as hard core as by today's standards. Simlarly, much modern erotica
is similar to vintage erotica. I guess that one major thing to note is
that porn!=erotica. They're just not the same thing.
The difference between porn and erotica seems somewhat unclear and
arbitrary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotica
It's unclear...but there is certainly a difference. 99.86% of hardcore
porn films at an adult video store are porn.
It comes down to what one considers art. There's a fine line
between art and entertainment. It's left to the viewer to
decide...but vintage erotica isn't necessarily porn. Most of the
images widely considered erotica have greater artistic merit than
most porn (even though they can be just as sexually engaging). Ever
take a photography class and do nudes? That isn't for sexual
gratification...but if it's a nude, is it erotica?
The point is that they're decidedly not the same.

[edit] Removed link

User JoaoRicardo removed the link from this section:

The distinction between erotica and pornography is somewhat arbitrary. Both often feature nudity, but crude sexuality more likely characterizes pornography. "Erotica" is usually considered to imply higher artistic merit, although for some, it can be just as sexually engaging. Many people appreciate the natural look of women in vintage erotica, which predates the widespread use of breast implants[1].

The reason for the link at the end was to provide evidence for the statement that many people appreciate the natural look of women in vintage erotica.. I will quote from the website:

"But why this old stuff?" you ask. Because it is real, it was well done, and all of the models are as they are. There are no silicon filled, lipo sucked, collagen injected artificialities in these beauties. They are as they were -- natural.
Their hips gently curve out from their waist, their eyes sometimes show bashfulness and at other times brazenness. But it is all real, and all very artistic.

69.243.41.28 05:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Carroll

Should Lewis Carroll be included here? 205.217.105.2 13:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Here is the discussion that led to the name change from vintage erotica to Photography of female nudes before 1923.

Best article ever! Concise, well-documented, and beautiful. It should be on the main page. 205.217.105.2 01:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A fine start, and could be brought up to FA quality with modifications and additions. The header needs to be tighter, and it's the wrong place to discuss Paul Reubens' collection. As well, the only photographer who gets any mention here is Belloque, and he was certainly not alone in producing quality erotic images. I believe there is much more room in this article for those who produced the images, and perhaps for some of the more notable images, studios, and models. Further discussion could include the hurdles early erotic art had to overcome from politicians and the clergy, and any notable cases falling out of these. I would also reduce the discussion of pornography in this article, not for reasons of taste, but because it really doesn't fit here. A note to indicate that there is an overlap is adequate, but any further discussion belongs in its own article. IMO, the choice of accompanying photos displays emminent grace and good taste. Denni☯ 04:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
    • Eliminated discussion of Paul Reuben; reduced discussion of porn; added other photographers. Grokstar 04:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • You added an image which appears to have been taken in the seventies or eighties. I would remove this, because it is in very jarring contrast to the other images. A suggestion - male nudes images were not uncommon in the early days - perehaps replace this with one of them? And how about a sample (and maybe a quick note) of stereo nude images? Those were quite popular. Denni☯ 05:08, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. I find myself in agreement with Denni's comments. Further, I question the cut-off date of 1923. No reason not to mention copyright considerations, I suppose, but I have seen stills from the 1930s to the 1970s often referred to as "vintage" as well. Edeans 04:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • True, 1923 is an arbitrary cutoff; the main reason for choosing it was that I could use any pictures from that era without causing a copyvio. Of course, one could hunt down some pics owned by universities and other governmental institutions that are public domain, or ask permission to reprint. However, anything we reprint goes straight into the GFDL, so presumably they would have to sign away their rights permanently. It seems that the highest quality stuff after 1922 is privately-owned. It is also possible to write about erotica without photos; however, I always thought that with some articles, it kinda defeats the point to have the text without the pictures. For an extreme example, see Dalen Kurtis' original page. Her main claim to fame is being a Playmate, yet there's no picture.. hmm.. maybe it doesn't matter, since they have the external links.. Grokstar 05:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Written by someone who thinks "erotica" means "photographs" ("Nude pictures prior to 1835 mostly consisted of paintings and drawings.") but wouldn't include those "arty" late 19th century photos of Neapolitan boys as erotica. All to get breasts on Wikipedia's front page. Copyvio in the 1950s photo is a minor detail. Mediocre as social history too. --Wetman 05:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, maybe it should be renamed Photography of female nudes prior to 1923. Anyhoo, there are some basic structural problems with this article:
      • "Vintage" is an ambiguous word. Presumably it means no longer being produced, but more recent than "Antique" or "Ancient". However, the distinction isn't clear.
      • "Erotica" embraces a whole field of writings, art, films, etc. that would be a much longer article than this one.
      • Early 20th century section stuffed with filler on other artists in order to provide more room to accomodate anachronistic 1950s nude that has now been deleted; that section is now glaringly blank and urgently needs more nudes. 69.243.41.28 06:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Completely Inexplicable Title

I'm sorry, I've read this article through pretty carefully, and I can't figure out any sane rationale for the title. What happened in 1923? The only possiblity which might be present in the article is that only those photographs from before 1923 are currently in the public domain &mdsash; but that's utter nonsense for two reasons 1) the copyright date is constantly sweeping forward, so that this article is self-obsoleting; 2) the copyright status of artwork is not inherently relevant, not a logical basis for organization — could you imagine an art museum arranged alphabetically by name of the frame maker?

On the other hand, perhaps the sentence about copyright is merely a parenthetical aside; and the 1923 cut-off date is there for some other reason. If so, for heaven's sake explain! Doops 06:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the title is cumbersome and not especially relevant. I also oppose the fact that this article — to which Vintage erotica redirects — is focused solely on female nudes. "Erotica" and pornography have, since the invention of the camera, featured nude females, nude males, and frequently both. -Branddobbe 08:21, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think a decent title would be Early 20th century nude photography, there's no reason why it should be restritcted to only females, although I'm sure the female was a more popular model.--nixie 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The date at which works published in the U.S. before that time are almost always out of copyright under U.S. law is not "constantly sweeping forward" anymore, after the most recent changes in copyright law... AnonMoos 10:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. Several voters recommended that the title be changed since the cutoff date at which things pass into the public domain in the US will change over time. Splash 01:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link

Removed bad external link (IchBin 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)) Also bad link for Sontag, Susan: The Mysterious Monsieur Bellocq, International Center of Photography.

[edit] Another Name Change

The name of this article seems to have been changed again and I think it should be changed yet again. 87.194.35.230 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is only about the U.S. then it should say so in its title. 87.194.35.230 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems from the title that it is just about erotic photography but from the images illustrating it it would seem to be about nude photography more generally, the photographic nude or portrait photograph with naked females subjects. I think erotic photography is a narrower genre. 87.194.35.230 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_erotic_photography_fe74.html"