I don’t know anything about this particular artist, but nude photography is super normal in the art world at large? I’m confused as to what makes nude photography ‘not art’ to you.
It seems like you might be purposely missing the point, which wouldn’t be a very cool thing for you to do, but I’ll treat it as though you are genuinely confused.
Nobody here is arguing that nude photography isn’t art. Nobody is arguing that the artist shouldn’t be able to make money selling that content as art. The point is that outside of patreon, there’s no sign of nude photography. Only once I support the artist on patreon do I see their nude photography. It should be clear what I will receive from the creator when I support them on patreon, and here it isn’t clear, I was given something I didn’t ask for. I understand I can just skip over it, but there are a bunch of reasons why I wouldn’t want NSFW stuff mixed in with my normal content feed, such as browsing at work or on the train. Plus, with a partner, if they see that and think that I am paying for someone’s only fans (or equivalent) it’s a difficult discussion to have. Sure, it will hopefully all end up being fine in the end with an understanding partner, but still, it’s not something I would have signed up for had I known.
I’m sorry, I think you meant to respond to another person. I was talking about Ilovethebomb statement of “this was pictures of the artist naked, not erotic art”, and wanting clarification on where that line is drawn in their mind.
Nobody here is arguing that the artist shouldn’t be able to make money selling that content as art.
I was 13 when mom graduated with a degree in fine art, so maybe I’ve just seen it more, but there are tons of people who think nude = porn and porn =/= art. I’m not saying you think like this, because I’ve never talked to you before, but the sentiment is super common in western culture at large.
I don’t know anything about this particular artist, but nude photography is super normal in the art world at large? I’m confused as to what makes nude photography ‘not art’ to you.
It seems like you might be purposely missing the point, which wouldn’t be a very cool thing for you to do, but I’ll treat it as though you are genuinely confused.
Nobody here is arguing that nude photography isn’t art. Nobody is arguing that the artist shouldn’t be able to make money selling that content as art. The point is that outside of patreon, there’s no sign of nude photography. Only once I support the artist on patreon do I see their nude photography. It should be clear what I will receive from the creator when I support them on patreon, and here it isn’t clear, I was given something I didn’t ask for. I understand I can just skip over it, but there are a bunch of reasons why I wouldn’t want NSFW stuff mixed in with my normal content feed, such as browsing at work or on the train. Plus, with a partner, if they see that and think that I am paying for someone’s only fans (or equivalent) it’s a difficult discussion to have. Sure, it will hopefully all end up being fine in the end with an understanding partner, but still, it’s not something I would have signed up for had I known.
I’m sorry, I think you meant to respond to another person. I was talking about Ilovethebomb statement of “this was pictures of the artist naked, not erotic art”, and wanting clarification on where that line is drawn in their mind.
I was 13 when mom graduated with a degree in fine art, so maybe I’ve just seen it more, but there are tons of people who think nude = porn and porn =/= art. I’m not saying you think like this, because I’ve never talked to you before, but the sentiment is super common in western culture at large.