Talk:Erotic art

Erotic art is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Visual arts B‑class

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Philosophy: Aesthetics B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Pornography B‑class Top‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Votes for proposed merger of erotica with erotic art

Please vote here. --Jahsonic 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny's contest

I started expanding this article in response to Danny's contest in Nov 2004. Unfortunately it turned out to be a much bigger subject, and harder to research than I expected. In any case, here is a ToDo list with some additional ideas. -- Solipsist 08:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vintage erotica

Discussion regarded merge with erotica archived here --Jahsonic 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Def. & Diffs. w/ Porn

These 2 sections should be combined, because contemplating the differences is an attempt to define, and alot of works are either art, porn or both, depending on POV.--Evb-wiki 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Porn Directory

After some debate (w/myself), I removed the following link from the Erotic Art page: Vintage Porn Directory. It appears to be strictly a porn site (mostly commerce links) or a link clearing house. While some of the images accessible on/through this site may have artistic or educational value, the site's focus is mainly historic, so I don't feel the link sufficiently adds to the quality or substance of our article. Perhaps, for illustrative purposes in the Diffs. w/ Porn sub-sec. (see above)?--Evb-wiki 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage erotica

I removed the parenthetical statement that erotic art is "(also known as Vintage erotica)." While some erotic art may be vintage and some vintage erotica may be art, the terms (and material) are not synonymous. Any modern erotic art, for example, is by definition not vintage.--Evb-wiki 22:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

I am wondering about this text in the article: "For example, a voluptuous nude painting by Peter Paul Rubens could have been considered erotic or pornographic when it was created for a private patron in the 17th century."

Perhaps a citation would be needed here to corroborate this statement, since the statement does not exactly correspond to the little I know of how such paintings of Rubens were viewed at that time. In the article Pornography for example, which corresponds better with my small knowledge, it says "pornography as understood today did not exist until the Victorian era." Certainly the view of regarding anything connected to sex hardened as of the first verified recorded outbreak of Syphilis, about the time America was discovered, but was Victorian morality really present in 17th century Antwerp? This seems anachronistic to me.

If no citation is forthcoming, perhaps text should be modified. DanielDemaret 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have seen neither comment nor citation, and I seen no evidence elsewhere that Rubens naked paintings might have been considered pornographic in Antwerp at the time, I find it prudent to remove that part of the statement in the article now. Better to remove an un-substantiated uncertain claim than to mislead. DanielDemaret 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding a resource for erotic art

I was wondering whether a external resource link to my website (ObsessionArt.com) or at least reference to it might be valid for this page.

I've spent the last two years gathering the very best fine art nude, figurative and erotic artists together on one site where it's simple (for the first time ever online) to purchase erotic prints. After all, most traditional galleries have shied away from stocking erotic art in the past so these artists have found their options to market limited.

The website now features 34 of the world's most respected artists in the erotic art genre including some already listed on Wikipedia such as Michael Manning.

I may be biased, of course, but I think my site is now a well constructed and useful resource online for anyone interested in purchasing high quality erotic art prints.

Here's a link so you can judge whether it's worthy of inclusion.

Erotic Art Prints

Thanks for your consideration,

Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oa markdavis (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whoever added the photos by Peter Klashorst, know this:

THAT IS NOT ART. THOSE ARE PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS.

They don't belong in the article, and I think they should be taken down.