HOME | DD
AdmiringBeautyArt β How much skin do you need for an erotic picture?
Published: 2013-04-19 11:48:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 35610; Favourites: 9; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
"None", some say. I've read this once in a magazine article about porn. They argued showing genitals isn't erotic at all. "A truly erotic picture doesn't show anything and leaves everything to your imagination", it went on. As a good example they gave the love scene in the car from the movie Titanic.
For those of you who haven't seen the movie here's how much naked skin you see in this scene:
It's nothing but a hand against a foggy glass, but in the context of the movie it expresses all the passion there is. This is a very beautiful scene, there is no question about it. Here's the question I asked myself: Is everyone who wants to see more than a hand on foggy glass really a pervert? That was exactly what the article was suggesting. But isn't it a little steep? And: can you expect from a movie like Titanic the ultimate answer?
Let's pretend for a moment you can. I don't know if the guys from the magazine article saw the whole movie but there is actually another interesting scene where Rose asks Jack to draw her nude:
The scene is followed by this dialog:
Old Rose: My heart was pounding the whole time. It was the most erotic moment of my life. Up until then, at least.
Lewis Bodine: So what happened next?
Old Rose: You mean, did we "do it"? Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Bodine, but Jack was very professional.
Doesn't it seem like Rose and Jack are much more liberal regarding drawing nudes, including breasts and genitals?
What is your opinion about this? Is less always more? Do you also have an idea about what is truly erotic? Do you also draw a line somewhere? Do you also call people perverts who cross this line? When you can see more does it truly mean there is nothing left for imagination? Do you think this is only your personal opinion or do you think it is common sense?
Why don't you write down your thoughts in the comments?
Related content
Comments: 69
I have been a Deviant and a retoucher for about five years now, and i have seen a LOT of nudes and I consider myself fairly liberal about what constitutes "art" but from time to time as I am browsing I run across shots and think "This shouldn't be allowed on this site!" Look I am a guy and I am not going to lie about it, I like porn, But I LOVE art. There is a difference. And in my experience it is not about what is being shown so much as how it is being shown. I have seen plenty of half clothed pictures of men and women that were down right vulgar (not that i mind, just saying) But i have also seen a few close ups of genitals where I could swear I see her kidneys, but lighting and the context told a story and inspired thoughts and feelings other then lust. That's the difference between pictures and art to me, Art tells a story and draws you into the scene, it communicates something via an emotional channel that normal communication is incapable reproducing.
π: 0 β©: 0
I guess there ain't a thing like "true erotica". A naked body is a naked body is a naked body. Erotica is an additional element loading the representation of a naked body with a sexual conotation. This sexual conotation depends on the watcher. It is always combined with sort of imagination about the continuation of a certain depicted erotique scene.
This for me is the line between erotica (=erotic arts) and porn. Porn does not leave any (or at least only little) space for imagination. The viewer hardly becomes an emotional part of the scene, though he or she may be sexually aroused. Pornographic works (= showing the act of making love of one or more persons...) can have an artistic approach as well and thus tend to be erotica. But I can't think of any porn really belonging to that category. Borders are floating and depending on many factors...
Since your question was about the amount of nudity shown: it doesn't matter. As long as there are "gaps" within the depiction, as long as there is room to be filled with imagination, even a picture of a clitoris in explicit pose can be erotique. But the more you show, the harder it will become to create an artistic and erotique picture. If a picture looks like pure business you have failed in my opinion...
π: 0 β©: 1
There is a company called x-art that comes close.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Do you also draw a line somewhere?"
The problem with drawing a line, no matter how liberally, is that as soon as you come to terms with something and accept it, there is something more disgusting just around the corner (the internet guarantees it).
"Do you also call people perverts who cross this line?"
I call people perverts when they don't admit to being perverts. It's porn but they're claiming they like it because of the artistry or because it's from some other culture that is more enlightened.
π: 0 β©: 1
I love it well said
π: 0 β©: 0
Eroticism is not the subject viewed, but the sensation and emotion conveyed into the viewer. This is entirely why art stays so ambiguously undefinable from porn or trash; each viewer sees the piece (expression, image, sculpture, etc) and it evokes something different in every person based on that individual's background, history, emotional state and more. As long as people continue to attempt to define and create boundaries to art and creativity, this debate will never end.
π: 0 β©: 0
If "leaving it all to the imagination" is what defines "erotic" then by definition sex is not erotic nor is naked people in lighted rooms.
I find the entire concept that something specific has to happen to create eroticism silly. Some people find feet extremely erotic, you can't show the beauty of a foot if its covered in a shoe can you? Some people find full body lycra suits erotic, which might show every curve without revealing anything. Or rather show nothing while revealing everything.
It would be at best difficult to make a universal finding as to what eroticism is. For each person it varies. For me the amount shown or not is less important than the feeling or mood of the photo. I have seen here on DA some straight up porn not even well done, legs spread to the world, and I have seen some images i'd hang on my wall showing all there is legs wide open. I have also seen fully clothed people bordering on porn, and others that again would be worthy of putting on the wall.
There is no black and white line here to draw. In a photo no matter what you show there will be room for your imagination. There is a beauty to the human form that when covered can be brought out, and when uncovered can be shown fully. It is more about the intent and feeling of what is shared and how well executed the photo is than a stiff line of chalk saying this is right this is wrong.
π: 0 β©: 0
Eroticism is inarguably relative and everyone (Across both Genders) has a very different impression of, and tolerance for, the varying levels of Eroticism. Throughout the years different parts of the body were sexualized "Culturally", and the clothing of the time was designed to take advantage of that. There was a time where ankles were "Hot" (And there are still quite a few people who find images based on feet quite compelling on an erotic level), and cleavage less so (It was 'more' Inappropriate', which touches on how the "Taboo" frequently lends itself to Eroticism... but that's a different conversation. 
Now I 'do' think there are several 'layers' of Eroticism within this understanding. In short, a piece can 'target' different erotic sub-cultures by its presentation (Fetishists, Innuendo, Blatant Sexuality, Etc.) and if one were 'truly' wanting to hone their craft in an exploration of Eroticism, experimenting in any of these different layers would promote not only a broader understanding of Eroticism as a whole, but allow one the opportunity to isolate the things in their work that appeal to them on an Erotic Level. For example while attempting an Innuendo Shot, you have a chance to figure out 'what' it is about the shot that promotes the sexuality for you (Form, Accent, Posture, Expression, Scenery, Etc.) and provided you get a reasonable array of feedback (Typically the most difficult part of 'any' artistic expression... though profoundly 'less' difficult in 'Erotic' Imagery... Of course Volume and Quality certainly don't go hand in hand...
Now, this isn't to say that these layers don't overlap with, and in some ways represent, an escalating level of "Sophistication" in Artistic Sexual Expression (Which of course is scaled relatively as well). For example, there's a difference between Sketches, Line Art, Fully Colored and Shaded Art, 3D Models, Textured and 'Lit' 3D Models, Etc. in "Traditional" Art. And though you cannot argue the difference in sophistication from one to the other, they all require a different skill set, and they all have an audience (That certainly overlaps, but not always). True too in Erotic Art, there are "Crude" shots (Or "Fuck Me" Shots as I call them, where the Model is clearly posed in such a way as to indicate imminent sexual activity. A construct I tend to see heavily featured in the Galleries of Male Photographers, and far more rarely in the Galleries of Female Photographers), Fetish Shots, "Evocative" shots (Focus is less on imminent sexual activity and they tends to lie more in the realms of Accents and Innuendo), among others. All that said, anyone ignorant enough to βNegativelyβ brand another's sexual interests 'Perverse' as if they understood the influences that developed them isn't really worth communicating with on that level.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's all about the audience. I've seen pictures of women in a sweater and jeans with bare feet and found it a big turn on. I've also seen thousands of nude pictures that I find completely devoid of eroticism, even though the original creator probably intended it. Sometimes I see it in the look on a model's face, the pose, or even how I feel that day.
With fetishes, what one person may find disgusting another person would find the most erotic and alluring thing in the world.
π: 0 β©: 0
A lot of questions to answer. I can only answer for myself. Nude shots for me are not where it is at, If it is a nude, I seem to enjoy the ones where the photographer poses the subject suggestively as apposed to just trying to make a breast or Vagina the subject of a photo. Often times when I am viewing nudes the ones that seem to attract me are ones that cover genitalia or poses the subject in such a way that compliments the arch of her back, or the curves of her legs and hips. While i do enjoy the female form, I do prefer to be taunted by what could be. Additionally I also prefer every single time women dressed in tight and VERY revealing outfits. This for me is the definition of sexy. High heels to help accent the legs, Short skirts to taunt and cause me to imagine. I love bare tummies. While Big breasts are nice, Eyes do more for me and I can be taken breathless by them.
I don't draw lines anywhere due to the fact that a lot can be controlled by mood. I don't know that I would ever call anyone a pervert for having view points different than mine. I feel its a personal taste and that I am no better or worse. I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer. I would never persecute a person for liking Vanilla ice cream just because I like chocolate
Very interesting subject, thanks for sharing with us!
π: 0 β©: 0
I feel that saying full nudity is perverted or leaves nothing to the imagination is to assume that women are nothing more than bodies, that their character can't be erotic and that they should be ashamed of revealing themselves. What are the odds that we don't all have our own interpretation of the type of woman Mia Solis (or any model for that matter) is or the type of woman she is trying to portray in her photos? Of course I think there are times and places and audiences for everything ranging from a steamy window to a complete nude or even actual sex, but none are inherently better or more perverted than the others. We don't need a full on sex scene in Titanic, but that doesn't mean pornography is wrong; it's just something different. It strikes me as very odd that we should be afraid or ashamed of our bodies or sex.
π: 0 β©: 0
I follow what seems to be the consensus here so far in that, eroticism comes in many forms and can be many different things to many different people. I once commented to another DA user on here in defense of one of your other photos (Caramel) and I think a quote from that would do nicely to sum up my opinion on this as well.
"Art is not conventional, there is no standard. It is personal and relative. It is so complex, so universally powerful and so intertwined with both the light and dark aspects of humanity that I can only compare it to love." -Justin Williamson (aka JustinianTheAverage)
π: 0 β©: 1
love the quote!
π: 0 β©: 0
Erotic art could be any image nude or otherwise that evokes a sexual/sensual feeling in the viewer. Whether there is nudity or not is irrelevant. Hell there may not even be a figure in the image. There are many different levels of sexuality and nuance in art, and whether it is erotic or not really comes down to the viewer. I think that people who claim that nudes are not erotic and are just 'porn' are very closed minded and should be mindful that theirs is only one perspective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. <3
π: 0 β©: 0
"A truly erotic picture doesn't show anything and leaves everything to your imagination"
......Naah. It's so typical for people to say that now, but it's just a group-think against the beauty of nudity. But good *timing* of what is exposed, and the mood, is everything.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the nude as erotic and vote for it being used most of the time for my own taste. I think ANY element used in conveying an emotional response should be well orchestrated with others. For instance, the environment in the MEOW!!! Titanic scene is soft, warm, and luxurious, and casts the perfect light on her body which is in and of itself gorgeous. Her nudity would convey something else completely (to most) if she were pictured naked and in dire straights, in a terribly white-lit grey dismal...you get it.
I have mixed feeling about how nudity has gone through the last century. The vision of the nude was so lovely until the Modernists and then the porn industry cheapened it in the eyes of the public. I absolutely hate this, because what then happens and happened everywhere is that then you have ill-educated art "teachers" passing on the idea that the nude is "outdated", "sexist", "degrading to women"...I knew a sculpting teacher who allowed no nude studies due to her own hangups.
The teacher then the student who becomes the teacher passes on this degrading poison, which is now thankfully getting cured in new classical ateliers springing up everywhere.
I have witnessed time and again the knee-jerk parroting of those trained in "contemporary" schools the idea that nudity is "passe" or "boring"...by those who didn't bother to go past making excuses in ever learning it. Under the idea that "no skin is needed for eroticism" is very often found some baggage that has shamed and "porned" the nude. I like to erase the 20th century entirely if I can when thinking or painting it.
The nude figure, given the expression and pose, can be anything: erotic, sad, funny...
Watch QUILLS O_O
π: 0 β©: 0
Like most things in life, this matter can not and should not be be pigeon-holed with restrictive parameters. After all, should Andy Warhol's art be banned simply because I don't like it?? Within society's limits to protect children etc...... we should accept each artists or viewers interpretation of erotic.
π: 0 β©: 0
i think that even showing more or less, it depends on the moment and/or the right pose.
Agree showing genitals isn't sexy at all because, if it's show the "wrong way" it wouldn't be,
even so showing less in the "wrong moment", it gives the same result. It's about moment plus a right pose, if it is a picture.
Just my opinion. ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
I, like many othere here, love erotic pictures. Some can be fully clothed, or in lingerie, or even fully nude. The picture itself, and the viewer ultimately are the deciding factor for an image being eroticr not. Even if the model is totally naked, and showing genitals, it CAN leave you wanting more. It CAN stir the imagination. But, as many suggested as well, what is erotic to one, may not br for another. It is similar to tring to decide when nudity in art stops being art and becomes porn.
I dont like nude pictures. I like artistic nudes. Even a very beautiful woman can seem unappealing if the photo does not present her well. It falls back on the photographer as well, to present the subject in an appealing manner, not just take a picture of a nekkid person.
But, yes, I like seeing skin. No I don't have to see everything. Does it make me pervy to enjoy seeing skin? No. I enjoy seeing woman, and even men once in a while, portrayed in a manner that shows how wonderful the human form is; I would think it more un-natural to NOT find the nude form unappealing.
π: 0 β©: 0
All nude art where nobody touches themselves in a sexual way is erotic to me. But simulating sex (like lips that eats strawberries in a sensual way) can also be very erotic.
π: 0 β©: 0
por supuesto, si se ven los genitales deja de ser erotica pues no deja nada para la imaginacion que es donde vive el erotismo
π: 0 β©: 0
I think a lot of parts play into what os erotic. To me erotic is a mood and I associate it with something good,exciting and passionate. I think showing eveything is fine because we all have reproductive parts which are not much more sexual than other parts of our bodies like abs, hands, butts thighs faces feet hair knees eyes and mouths. The only time I see something as perverted is when I know people are trying to humiliate someone else. I see this happen in mainstream reality tv shows more than mainstream porn. Even in terms of bondage pictures I dont see it as perverted but more as an expression about the tension we are all bound to in sexuality since it is a big part of our lives. Certainly there are better pictures and film than others, but like I said, perversion comes along when people try to make something dishonest or less out of people. For example, commercials tend to show people as obnoxious brainless dancing idiot consumers whose only purpose is to buy stuff. To me this is an insult because people are more than what the media shows. Perversion doesnt only have to do with sex, it means taking something good and creating something dishonest or bad. I think to say naked people are bad is perversion itself and have also found most people who call others perverts are usually hypocrites.
Erotic passions are a great thing and everyone who is a healthy adult human can usually respect this fact.
π: 0 β©: 0
I've always felt like this is an unnecessary argument, because the world is filled with people who are aroused by different things. Some are turned on by a picture of a girl's feet, others are driven crazy by decorations on the body such as piercings and tattoos. Some people even have a fetish for cars, but most people would say that a picture of a car could never be erotic, but if DOES have the ability to arouse someone, doesn't that mean it's still erotic, even if it wasn't the artist's intention? Art is all about the interpretation of the viewer. If you want to think it's erotic or not, that's okay, but I don't think you can ever claim it to be a fact, one way or the other.
π: 0 β©: 0
Less can be more. Depends on the context! Sometimes it's about the implication, the imagination of what is behind it all, what the actual body looks like.
Sometimes it's about the body itself, the look that is given implying they got caught, or they are excited you came across them naked.
MOST importantly, it's about what your intention is, and who your target is. Obviously "upstanding, Christian values" would absolutely hate any connotation of eroticism. Some will not be satisfied without full on nudity. There is a broad scope, and you need to know what the target is.
π: 0 β©: 0
since you said "need" the answer is none. eroticism is all in the mind. which is not to say that there is anything wrong with a tremendous amount of nudity ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
I imagine a banana could be erotic in the right situation, it's not the amount of flesh showing that makes something erotic, it's the story, the situation, and the emotions these generate. That's how music can be erotic, by stimulating a person's passions.
π: 0 β©: 0
I will simply say it depends on the viewer. i personaly feel it can be either way
π: 0 β©: 0
A shadow can be enough or even the outline of a body with a bright light source on the other side so only the silhouette is seen.
π: 0 β©: 0
Fully nude or not, without regard for the amount of skin shown, eroticism is not exclusive to any one level of magnitude in this regard. As some have already mentioned before me, any indication of arousal from the viewer is surely looking at something "erotic".
π: 0 β©: 0
To me, something erotic has to arouse you. It doesn't really matter how much is shown or hidden. Erotic pictures can show no skin, or completely naked people. What matters is the situation, environment, pose, suggested story, etc. Erotic pictures have to be enticing, but tasteful (in opposition to porn, which has for only purpose to show flesh). Fine art nudes are more about revealing the pure physical beauty and aesthetics of the human body.
π: 0 β©: 0
"It's not what you show, it's how you show it." How much you show depends, and varies for each situation. Some of the best erotica is highly explicit and leaves nothing to the imagination, and then again, some erotica leaves almost everything to the imagination -- which works best depends on the artist and his intended audience.
π: 0 β©: 0
To me eroticism is more the situation. Prior to going out on our date, I asked my girlfriend to stand in front of her closet with full-length mirrors, strike some poses and watch me feel her up, fully clothed, from behind. We watched my hands roam up her legs, lift her mini-skirt as they continued up but not higher than the top of her beautiful thigh, caress and fondle covered breasts and her exposed belly. She stopped me before long, fearing we might not make it out of her apartment. Once in the car, she allowed me her leg and smiled 50 shades of blush as passing drivers looked in. At the night-club, we sat in the upper level watching the dance-floor and sitting behind, I massaged her back, neck and shoulders -- under her top -- and pulled her hair as she nursed her drink. When I pointed out our spectators, she allowed me to be bolder. I caressed her legs and ass, told her to open her legs but never went beyond her inner and outer thighs. By the time she finished her drink, she climaxed. On the dance-floor, I had her rock and sway in place, arms lifted as I caressed her again from behind. The other dancers gave us a wide birth so everything we did was fully visible for all to see. After three numbers she said, "I've had enough. Take me home NOW!"
π: 0 β©: 0
There is tasteful erotics which like this leave enough to the imagination which makes it MUCH more erotic then a photo with the whole she bang out in the open.
Don't get me wrong they're both art, beautiful, erotic but for some the one that leaves a little more to the imagination is a lot more powerful then something again showing everything
π: 0 β©: 0
An image doesn't necessarily have to be nude or explicit to be erotic, but it doesn't follow that nudity isn't erotic. It's all in the artistry of the piece. I've seen some explicit nudes that weren't sexy at all, but others that were incredibly sexy.
π: 0 β©: 0
This has to be judged by each person, some people may find a deep intelectual conversation extremely erotic in their own way...
π: 0 β©: 0
To me, erotica is measured in the tone or mood, rather then a level of exposure.... I find a good diet of all levels of nudity best suits me.... Fully clothed, partially nude, suggested or implied nudity, artistic nudity, x-rated to pornographic. Each level makes me appreciate the others more. I get bored with too much of just one.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think the article writer in citing a feature film probably did a disservice in exploring the "eroticism" issue.
Hollywood...or I should say the Motion Picture Academy Ratings System is VERY political. If you rent the independent documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" [link] , they did a compelling compare & contrast showing side by side nude scenes: one was during the 80's & approved, the other post-Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" & rejected (earning the dreaded X-rating). & this was just one telling example in the doc.
In general though it also boggles my mind how our society (at least here in America) gets freaked out over a little boobage (to say nothing about *gasp* the penis) but depicting gratitious violence without consequences to the applicable characters, nobody bats an eyelash.
π: 0 β©: 0
None. However, that does not mean that a picture with a lot of skin isn't erotic. It's all based on personal interpretation and definition - what I think is erotic may not be what someone else thinks is erotic.
π: 0 β©: 0
Erotic is completely on the side of the the person looking at something, be it the creator of a viewer. For me, erotic isn't so much what is physically happening in a scene, but the emotional feeling it creates. Sometimes a completely clothed woman can be far more erotic than a full nude. It is about attitude, presentation, etc.
π: 0 β©: 0
I enjoy watching erotic pictures when I feel that the ladies are available.
π: 0 β©: 0
I judge on a piece by piece basis...and I stay fully aware that it's only MY opinion.
π: 0 β©: 0
My opinion is that erotic is left to the person. It fits well for many shades of nudity. I enjoy your out in the open versions, I like the dark shots where all you get is the outline, and many other shades. Less is not always more but I think it's power can not be denied.
It is hard to just say where this line is draw... I can see it when I look at nude photography, I look for what I enjoy and drop what is just a naked woman to me. For me it a design that I pinpoint about the feeling of the work.
I have never called someone a pervert. My line is not someone elses, but being a pervert is not a question of what I consider erotic art for me, if I was a pervert why would I care if another called it an art, content would be my only desire.
When you see more does not mean that the imagination is still not left to wonder, that is what it does. It does not stop, it continues searching. So she isn't hidden in clothes, let us wonder the intent, the scene, and other elements of the shot other than the person being shot.
All this of course being a strong opinion of mine...
π: 0 β©: 0
some really interesting comments that touch upon my thoughts so I don't have a lot to add to the discussion, but erotic for me is closer to porn than fine art nude
π: 0 β©: 0
I think there's a difference between passionate and erotic. The first is about love the second is about sex.
I don't think less is always more but then neither is more. Of course there's so much more to an erotic image than just skin, facial expression, pose for example play a major role. I think the line between porn and art, if it exists at all, is a very blurry one. Creating good porn is an artistic venture.
I tend not to think in terms of pervertion when it comes to sexuality. The drive for money is more what I think of as a perversion, it makes people do thinks they wouldn't otherwise do: the worst example of which is killing other people in wars or elsewhere.
π: 0 β©: 0
The real issue is that these sorts of things are relative- there is no absolute threshold, merely a series of personal tolerances.
π: 0 β©: 0
an artistic nude doesn't have to be erotic in nature, and an erotic photo doesn't have to include nudity. good discussion here... the two often go hand-in-hand... many nude photos generate erotic energies (whether intended or not), and many erotic photos include nudity.
π: 0 β©: 0
i think erotism has to do with the fact of sensuality, sensuality is on a lot of stuff!! genitalia included, for me porn is when you show the act of sex itself, other than the beauty of the human body!! so i love your art!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Eroticism comes from presentation and intent. The amount of skin revealed plays a very small part in it. For artists, I think this is common sense; but for viewers I don't believe that is the case.
When viewing art we bring our own tastes and assumptions into the equation. If one is so easily aroused that all it takes is a nude figure then even Michelangelo's David could be considered erotic. If high heels are your fetish than a shot focusing on legs in ballerina heels could be very erotic indeed. At this point it doesn't matter what the artist's intent was because the viewer draws their own conclusion.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>