Public Nudity

[osho]

In fact I cannot look at nudity from the same lens as osho can. I am a Hindu and I have different value systems. While I cannot hate a nude person I cannot appreciate someone unclothed either. Maybe my up-growing is different, not western. Mine is a close society and even a woman walking half-exposed is condemnable.

I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

Blaze, this is something you shallowly take and misconstrue the spirit of my post. I did not go against the decency of being clothed. I myself have never walked nakedly.

All I have argued for is human nature beneath our social norms, customs, etiquette, ethics and moral codes. I am a non-conventional thinker and I want to see underneath things beyond our conventional wisdom.

If there is no beauty and significance in nudity why many of temples and shrines have nude idols and carvings? Our ancient sages too understood the significance of nudity and they even consecrated it. Tantra necessitates nude figures and at times acts of sex too. But Tantra is a sacred and religious practice.

[Whifflingpin]

"The simple fact that no-one complains about St. Luke's pics is that they are imaginative representations rather than real photos."
A painted portrait, prior to the age of photography, was the most realistic representation possible and a photograph is merely an image, no more "real" than a painting. I suspect that most photographers would also claim that their works were "imaginative representations," just as much art as anything done with paint on canvas.

****

"I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children. "

I do not "practice naturism" at a private club. I do go to a nearby public beach where many people swim and sunbathe nude. The reason I frequent that beach rather than others is because I cannot see the sense in wearing clothes to go swimming or sunbathing. I do not have any kind of obsession with breasts or genitals, and therefore I can see no good reason for treating them, clothing wise, any differently from any other part of the body. There is no justification that I can see for covering up a nipple, rather than a nose, or hiding a testicle when the toes can go bare.

You may question why any one would want public nudity. To me, nakedness is the natural state of humans and needs no other justification. Putting on clothes, however, is an action that requires a reason, and I accept that there are many reasons for wearing clothes, some good & some bad.

Whether wives, daughters or grandchildren go nude or clothed is entirely their own business, and should be without pressure or censure. I do not think that anyone, of any age, is harmed by seeing other people unclothed. Nor is anyone harmed by being seen unclothed, whatever the thoughts of the spectator.

You seem very concerned about voyeurs. I guess I'd count as a voyeur in your terms, i.e. a bloke that looks at women sometimes from 'low' motives, whatever that means. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I repeat what I said earlier, that I am much more likely to be titillated by the half-hidden, hinted-at form than by outright nakedness. On the beach, I'll read my book or watch the boats - in the park, I might stare at the lass with the light shining through her skirt. A general acceptance of nudity might kill voyeurism stone dead. The greatest beneficiaries of clothing, apart from the people who sell it, are probably the pornographers.

[Paulclem]

"The simple fact that no-one complains about St. Luke's pics is that they are imaginative representations rather than real photos."
A painted portrait, prior to the age of photography, was the most realistic representation possible and a photograph is merely an image, no more "real" than a painting. I suspect that most photographers would also claim that their works were "imaginative representations," just as much art as anything done with paint on canvas.

****

"I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children. "

I do not "practice naturism" at a private club. I do go to a nearby public beach where many people swim and sunbathe nude. The reason I frequent that beach rather than others is because I cannot see the sense in wearing clothes to go swimming or sunbathing. I do not have any kind of obsession with breasts or genitals, and therefore I can see no good reason for treating them, clothing wise, any differently from any other part of the body. There is no justification that I can see for covering up a nipple, rather than a nose, or hiding a testicle when the toes can go bare.

You may question why any one would want public nudity. To me, nakedness is the natural state of humans and needs no other justification. Putting on clothes, however, is an action that requires a reason, and I accept that there are many reasons for wearing clothes, some good & some bad.

Whether wives, daughters or grandchildren go nude or clothed is entirely their own business, and should be without pressure or censure. I do not think that anyone, of any age, is harmed by seeing other people unclothed. Nor is anyone harmed by being seen unclothed, whatever the thoughts of the spectator.

You seem very concerned about voyeurs. I guess I'd count as a voyeur in your terms, i.e. a bloke that looks at women sometimes from 'low' motives, whatever that means. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I repeat what I said earlier, that I am much more likely to be titillated by the half-hidden, hinted-at form than by outright nakedness. On the beach, I'll read my book or watch the boats - in the park, I might stare at the lass with the light shining through her skirt. A general acceptance of nudity might kill voyeurism stone dead. The greatest beneficiaries of clothing, apart from the people who sell it, are probably the pornographers.

I would contend that photos are more real. There's less of a distance between the photo and a person, rather than a person and a painting. It's a matter of opinion though.

I can assure you I'm not very concerned about voyeurs - after all no-one will be looking at me except a policeman if I did go naked in public - round here anyway.

Looking back over the thread, it is mainly men, (only men), who would advocate public nudity, and you have to wonder why. (Except for Scher who go naked for environmental reasons. Creditable by the way).

I think your response is honest, but it comes down to a question of do people want others to be able to view them in a way that they would feel uncomfortable with without the protection/ barrier/ confidence that clothes provide even if clothes are more sexy? At least the sexy clothes aspect is under the control of the wearer rather than the viewer.

If no-one wore clothes, then no-one would mind nudity of course, and our view of it would be radically different. We don't though, and there are all sorts of mind sets due to this.

[Whifflingpin]

"If no-one wore clothes, then no-one would mind nudity of course, and our view of it would be radically different. We don't though, and there are all sorts of mind sets due to this."

This is, of course, true. To some extent the mind set drives the behaviour, and to some extent the behaviour drives the mindset. (Well - that was either porfound or gibberish)

It seems that - no, it is obvious that - in the West at least, nudity is becoming more and more practiced and hence more acceptable. A mere three generations ago, a couple might have had children without actually seeing each other naked. (As is still the case in some cultures, I think) Now, however, almost-minimal covering is so common as to go unremarked, and events like nude bike rides or calendars scarcely raise an eyebrow.

It is interesting that only men are advocating public nudity in this thread. On the beach there are certainly more nude men than women, but the difference diminishes as the weather improves - men are more hardy, it appears. Or would appear, except that, in general, women seem to expose more flesh than men whatever the weather - I think there is a doctoral thesis waiting there for someone.

You think a policeman might look at you if you go bare in Coventry (a place famed through the ages for a naked equestrian event!) If said constable did look at you, it would only, in his professional capacity, to ensure that you were able to go about your lawful business without let or hindrance. Nudity, when not intended to cause alarm or distress, is not a legal offence in public places in England.

[ftil]

In fact I cannot look at nudity from the same lens as osho can. I am a Hindu and I have different value systems. While I cannot hate a nude person I cannot appreciate someone unclothed either. Maybe my up-growing is different, not western. Mine is a close society and even a woman walking half-exposed is condemnable.

I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

I am glad that your brought your perspective on that subject. It is interesting how some westerners may take Indian culture, particularly the art of the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple and make assumptions how your culture view sexuality and nudity. How it is misleading. Thanks again.

Orignially posted by Paulclem:
I still would question why anyone would want public nudity. The inner motivations of people are unknowable, and it raises questions as to why anyone would advocate it.

I take it you practice naturism. Fine. peple do what they want in private clubs etc, but I would wonder about anyone advocating nudity to my wife and daughter for example, or children.

I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious.

Originally posted by Osho:
I am male. You are right on several fronts and wrong on one front. You said I love nudity. Wrong. I do not personally love nude. I am not straying and do not want to do something foully. When I speak of nudity I always stressed that I like its beauty, the beauty of nudity, the way I like to see a dog, an ox in their sheer nudity and I appreciate the beauty of it the way I admire a rose. I do not want to damage a rose and I want it as it is and I am a beholder the beauty of it and I have too many roses in my garden and I never pick at them. The same thing with things of beauty, women or men and If I see them in their stark nudity my aesthetic self leaps up to hug it.

I didn’t get that from your posts. Particularly, from a post that made me uncomfortable.

Did I stop women to speak for themselves? Who am I to do and in what capacity? This is a free forum and I want to maintain a certain degree of decency and respect every poster and though I become an arguer and yet I personally do not want to hurt anybody.

You are true that many males are inconsiderate and women complain about them and their failures to understand. I do not belong there. I want to set them free and request them to set myself free

I guess, misunderstanding is an old problem between men and women. Well, you didn’t stop women to speak but you spoke on their behalf. If you truly want women to be free, listen to women what they feel or think. You may be quite surprised how wrong you were.

[Paulclem]

"

You think a policeman might look at you if you go bare in Coventry (a place famed through the ages for a naked equestrian event!) If said constable did look at you, it would only, in his professional capacity, to ensure that you were able to go about your lawful business without let or hindrance. Nudity, when not intended to cause alarm or distress, is not a legal offence in public places in England.

Yes, there she sits in al her glory.

In my case the charge might be malice inducing mass vomiting in the populace.

[stlukesguild]

Blaze of Glory- I find osho's insight and knowledge base outreaching mine I on the other hand have a different voice when it comes to talking about nudity. Of course in Nepal and India we have many nude idols in our temples and shrines in their erotic postures but I never can go and visit them with my family members. I had not grown up in the west to do since in the east men and women cannot even kiss, though a few do, in the open how can one expose his or her nudity in public.

osho might have a western education and that is why he voices differently from the rest of us on such issues.
I do not think our society in Nepal can digest his ideas of nudity or seeing nudes in public places. It seems funnily untenable and inconceivable in all respects.

I cannot subscribe to your view on this particular issue though on so many other counts I like your iconoclastic thoughts. Yours is an ultramodern thought. Maybe we in Nepal need at least half a century to conceive such ideas.

ftil- I am glad that your brought your perspective on that subject. It is interesting how some westerners may take Indian culture, particularly the art of the famous Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple and make assumptions how your culture view sexuality and nudity. How it is misleading.

Nepal is not India and it most certainly isn't the whole of the "East". I wouldn't make presumptions of what the "East" is like based either upon art or upon one man's experiences from one corner of a continent. Obviously the open eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of the era in which it was conceived. Let's face it, there is nothing like this in the whole of the "decadent" West. Eroticism in art exists... but blatant eroticism is largely hidden away... and still is. One can almost imagine the Victorian-era British colonels first coming upon this temple... their monocles popping out of their eyes as they exclaim, "Bloody 'ell!"

Has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that stlukesguild is publishing fully revealing and, in many cases, erotic pictures in this thread, with no word of protest from any quarter, but if a member published a similar self-portrait as a photograph in the Lit Network Photoalbum, he would probably be banned, and she would probably be reviled?

This touches upon something of the hypocrisy I have spoken of. Once an image of style of representation has been absorbed into the artistic traditions it no longer has the ability to shock. The sophisticated late 19th century Parisian gentlemen could view this painting at the Louvre without the least discomfort:



But this painting left him outraged!



Naked women carousing in the park with fashionably dressed men?! What was the artist thinking?! But isn't that exactly what the first artist (Titian/Giorgione) has shown as well? But the Renaissance painting is acceptable because it has been perfumed with the passage of time and blessed with the sanctity of art.

But let's take a look at another pairing of paintings by the same two artists. Again, no sophisticated and educated Parisian gentleman would have been the least bit nonplussed at coming upon Venus d'Urbino in the Ufizzi:



But again he was absolutely shocked and appalled at Manet's Olympia:



The absolute audacity of that man! To paint a prostitute... in all her nakedness... her hand touching her self THERE... and the shameless hussy staring back at us... lacking even the decorum to look away. And the cat at her feet... a rude sexual pun.

But how is this different from Titian's Venus? She also is a prostitute... albeit an upper-class courtesan. She is equally naked. Her hand is placed in an equally suggestive manner. She also boldly returns our gaze. At her feet, a lap dog... a symbol of fidelity... is surely an ironic pun upon fidelity itself. Manet has simply looked at Titian's Venus and pointed out just how shocking the painting really is... in spite of the perfume of art history. Intriguingly, it took an unsophisticated American, Mark Twain, to recognize the real shock and blatant sexuality of Titian's painting, as he ranted against it as the most obscene painting in the whole of Western art.

Steve Martin, himself a knowledgeable art collector and writer on art (as well as comedian) discussed Canova's famed Three Graces by pointing out that the sculpture has long been known as representing the "three finest asses in the history of art".



Martin admits, however, that he would not expect to come across this fact in a scholarly tome on art history or Canova. The general art lover browsing the art historical tome doesn't want to be told that Giorgione painted this...



for the simple reason that he wanted to paint a naked woman...because he could think of nothing more beautiful... nothing more exciting. No, art history will tell us that the Renaissance artists approached the body through a complex philosophy of Neo-Platonism, and that Giorgione, as a Venetian, was drawn to the female figure as less sculptural and linear and more organic and atmospheric... like the landscape of Venice itself which was better suited to oil paint. The figure itself, obviously represented Venus... in spite of the fact that there are no attributes whatsoever to suggest that she is anything more than a hedonistic representation of a beautiful naked woman for her own sake... the first example of such in Western art since the classical age.

Every culture has its standards of what is or is not acceptable with regard to the representation of the human body and human sexuality. Even in our culture... which embraces sexually suggestive dress and behavior among celebrities, legalized pornography (in the privacy of one's own home), breast implants, and Viagra commercials on prime time TV, there are limitations of what is acceptable within the public dialog of art. The most graphic violence is allowed in films and even video games accessible to minors... but the image of someone caressing a breast... or the appearance of any genitalia will immediately earn a film a NC-17... or worse rating. Is it surprising that artists are continually pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable? The goal is not to shock. (At least not among the efforts of artists of real merit. There will always be artistic juveniles for whom shock is an easy path to gaining attention.) The goal is to draw attention to the hypocrisy between that which we embrace in our private lives and that which we stigmatize and hide away as "filthy" in our art. The goal is also to allow the artist the freedom to explore the whole of human experience without the notion that some aspects of human experience are unworthy... or taboo.

[ftil]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Nepal is not India and it most certainly isn't the whole of the "East". I wouldn't make presumptions of what the "East" is like based either upon art or upon one man's experiences from one corner of a continent. Obviously the open eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of the era in which it was conceived. Let's face it, there is nothing like this in the whole of the "decadent" West. Eroticism in art exists... but blatant eroticism is largely hidden away... and still is. One can almost imagine the Victorian-era British colonels first coming upon this temple... their monocles popping out of their eyes as they exclaim, "Bloody 'ell!"

Well, I appreciate that Blazeofglory has brought her perspective. After all, she is more competent that any westerner who try to make own interpretation about the culture of India. I agree that eroticism of the Kandariyâ Mahâdeva temple conveyed something of the culture of that era. We may argue as we have done before if it is eroticism or pornography. I don’t know if you looked carefully at sculptures. There is a sculpture that depicts sex with an animal, for example. There are sculpture that depict orgy. We may not agree what eroticism means but we have to accept that others may not see it as celebration of life.

[osho]

n fact at Khajuraho we come across many gods and goddess in their erotic raptures and these nude idols carved out in the Middle Ages in India had some historical significance. Sexual exploitation in India was rampant by earlier kings and princes and Rajas and Maharajas had so many wives and most of the temples in India were built by them.

Blaze has yet to understand some subtle realities. But my topic is different and this is about taking nudity from a rational and aesthetic standpoint not from a stained or colored lens. My argument is we try to masquerade what we are and try to show what we are not. What we are is a nude human and what we do is try to give an illusion of what we are not

[blazeofglory]

n fact at Khajuraho we come across many gods and goddess in their erotic raptures and these nude idols carved out in the Middle Ages in India had some historical significance. Sexual exploitation in India was rampant by earlier kings and princes and Rajas and Maharajas had so many wives and most of the temples in India were built by them.

Blaze has yet to understand some subtle realities. But my topic is different and this is about taking nudity from a rational and aesthetic standpoint not from a stained or colored lens. My argument is we try to masquerade what we are and try to show what we are not. What we are is a nude human and what we do is try to give an illusion of what we are not

I understand the subtlety or meaning of those erotically carved walls at the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple and what shocks me is you failed to understand my point. Nudity got for some reason covered down our evolutionary history and today if we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that

[Whifflingpin]

"I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious. "

It is not a question of some people wanting public nudity. The weird thing is that any one would, in general, object to it. What anyone wears should be their own decision, and if someone wishes to be bare then it is absolutely not, in general, any one else's business. Likewise, if anyone wishes to wear clothes, of any other than deliberately offensive kinds, that too is entirely their decision.

I don't know where you live, but in England any public place is a place where people can practice naturism, provided that they have no deliberate intention to cause shock or distress.

I do not advocate nudity, I just happen to prefer it under certain conditions and am not afraid to say so. If I did advocate nudity, it would only be on the grounds that I think it is, within reason, healthy and good for people - exactly the same reasons for advocating a healthy diet. And if people object that they don't like eating greens, then that is their choice, on just the same level as people saying that they prefer to wear clothes.

[ftil]

"I don’t understand why anybody would want public nudity. We have place where people can practice naturism and those who like it are free to do so. But advocating it brings questions about their motivations. I am wondering if those motivations are conscious or unconscious. "

It is not a question of some people wanting public nudity. The weird thing is that any one would, in general, object to it. What anyone wears should be their own decision, and if someone wishes to be bare then it is absolutely not, in general, any one else's business. Likewise, if anyone wishes to wear clothes, of any other than deliberately offensive kinds, that too is entirely their decision.

I don't know where you live, but in England any public place is a place where people can practice naturism, provided that they have no deliberate intention to cause shock or distress.

I do not advocate nudity, I just happen to prefer it under certain conditions and am not afraid to say so. If I did advocate nudity, it would only be on the grounds that I think it is, within reason, healthy and good for people - exactly the same reasons for advocating a healthy diet. And if people object that they don't like eating greens, then that is their choice, on just the same level as people saying that they prefer to wear clothes.

Well, I ask a question why people want public nudity. We have already lots of freedom. People can practice naturism if they choose.
We have a nudist beach where I live. I am not against nudity. As I wrote I like swimming naked or have a full suntan and I can find place where I can do it without offending anybody or being offended. Appreciation of the beauty of human body doesn't mean that we have to walk naked.
Blazeofglory beautifully said, “ we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that”

Western society is very far from being mature to understand it.

[Whifflingpin]

"Appreciation of the beauty of human body doesn't mean that we have to walk naked.
Blazeofglory beautifully said, “ we see public nudity most cannot understand your aesthetic philosophy and nudity will not approved in our society and we are not matured enough for that”

Western society is very far from being mature to understand it. "

I've not said anything about human beauty, and nudity has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with seeing or being seen. Putting clothes on and deciding what to wear are all about seeing and being seen, presenting a particular image of ourselves to others.

Nakedness is neutral. As Osho has said, it is simply accepting ourselves for what we are. It is very sad that so many people find that difficult.

[ftil]

I've not said anything about human beauty, and nudity has nothing to do, as far as I am concerned, with seeing or being seen. Putting clothes on and deciding what to wear are all about seeing and being seen, presenting a particular image of ourselves to others.

Nakedness is neutral. As Osho has said, it is simply accepting ourselves for what we are. It is very sad that so many people find that difficult.

Well, I have heard many voice who emphasized and justified being naked as an appreciation of a human body. I agree that accepting ourselves is crucial for our emotional health. It is not healthy to carry shame about it. But it was not a subject of this tread. Otherwise, I wouldn’t say anything. People jumped from being naked to sexuality and being a body that is run by instincts. I have a very different idea what being a fully human means.

[stlukesguild]

I don't know if anyone here is advocating public nudity. Personally, I don't live in the sort of climate where such is even possible outside 2 or 3 months of the year. In the summer months I tend to wear little more than shorts while working in my studio and I prefer to sleep naked... but it is just me and my wife. It is quite probable that those who make the decision to live as nudists are quite an emotionally stable and healthy as anyone else... and quite likely more so when it comes to being comfortable with the human body and perhaps even sexuality.

My interest in the nude and in eroticism in art... in this discussion... is rooted in what I perceive to be a certain inconsistency or hypocrisy concerning sexuality and eroticism in art. It is a simple fact that the nude is one of the more difficult subjects to sell as an artist... in spite of its long tradition or history and the fact that in many ways it is recognized as the most respected and challenging subject for the artist. Indeed, it is not merely a difficult subject to sell... it is a difficult subject to get displayed in may venues. I have experience such prejudice myself. After having been selected by a university art department to exhibit in a group show, the dean of the same university overruled the faculty and removed all but one of my paintings from exhibition in spite of the fact that the work in question was far from the level of eroticism of Eric Fischl, Egon Schiele, the late prints of Picasso, the Japanese Shunga or the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple:



The reality is, that there is still a great deal of Puritan attitudes concerning nudity (let alone sexuality) in art in the United States. We have the example of the US Attorney General, Edwin Meese with his obsessive "witch hunt" for pornography in the arts. We have Attorney General John Ashcroft ordering that the Neo-classical statue representing Justice be covered with curtains because of her bare breast, as well as his public statement during talks concerning the possibility of Michelangelos' David visiting the US to the effect that the Renaissance masterpiece would need to be affixed with a fig leaf of loin cloth before such a visit. And we have mayor Giuliani's attempt to shut down an exhibition in New York with the notorious Yo Mamma's Last Supper:



If we delve deeper we find examples of the art teacher fired for the paintings he made on his own time in which he used various body parts as opposed to brushes... in spite of the fact that he kept his art career separate from his teaching career to the point of using a pseudonym:

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2...with-buttocks/

Then there is the 28-year veteran teacher who was fired for taking her students on a school sanctioned field trip to the art museum where some of the students saw (gasp!) nudes, and one of the parents complained:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...acher_fir.html

Lest we miss the point that Puritanism is alive and well in America, we have this almost unbelievable instance:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2339673&page=1

Now no one is calling for the display of genitalia on billboards, nor irresponsibly exposing minors to images of nudity or sexuality in museums, galleries, or anywhere else, but there is a certain something warped in a culture that allows for the portrayal of graphic violence in films and in video games that are often accessible to minors, while treating the portrayal of the nude and human sexuality in art and film as something far worse... something shameful or "dirty" that needs to be hidden away. There is something wrong with championing the notion of liberty and free-speech... embracing the suggestiveness in pop videos and advertising, breast enlargements, Viagra commercials, and pornography (in the privacy of one's own home) while censoring that art which deals with the nude or the erotic... even labeling it "pornographic".

A question one might raise upon this board is how it is that the graphic sexual imagery found in Portnoy's Complaint (or many other novels by Philip Roth), the novels of Bukowski, Celine, Genet, certain poems of Baudelaire, Rimbaud etc... are recognized as ART while the Kandaria Mahadeva Temple, Japanese Shunga prints, Egon Schile paintings etc... can even begin to be defined as pornography?