Talk:Erotic art

message: Please vote here. --Jahsonic 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for proposed merger of [[erotica]] with [[erotic art]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Danny's contest 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Combine Def. & Diffs. w/ Porn

message: 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)
thread_title: Vintage Porn Directory

message: 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)
thread_title: Vintage erotica

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citation needed?

message: 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)
thread_title:  adding a resource for erotic art  

message: 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.
:Peter Klashorst is respected Dutch artist, but I can tell you that all his photographic artwork was against wikipedias policies censored from Commons (See:  so you wont see his artwork in Wikipedia again. Klassikkomies (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Art" 

message: This series of edits by  seems problematic to me.
*promotional linkage to eroticartvillage·com
*promotional language with undue weight on current commercial artists (which I wouldn't be surprised to find well-represented in eroticartvillage·com's catalog)
*removal of much arguably notable (and I would guess, GFDL-compatible) work
Instead of fixing just the worst of this, I have reverted Darkerotic's edits. It would be helpful if someone with more expertise in this subject could review that editor's changes for usable content. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darkerotic edits 

message: I now see that :File:Staff Of Life Or Horn Of Man.JPG was inserted earlier, by . While this image might be useful in another article, a historical survey of art should probably only include works of recognized importance. The image, taken on 10 March 2009, and captioned as "Erotic photograph taken with a digital camera implementing the chiaroscuro effect", is probably not worth including in this article.
I've removed Tamara Artist's image and the supporting edits. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamara Artist edits

message: I believe the association does not warrant a section on this page:
* The association is a small group of artists, mostly in the UK (their domain is a .co.uk one)
* A google search suggests that the association is not referenced on the internet other than:
** on its own web site
** on members' web sites or their online profiles
** in press releases
** on sites which it sponsors
** on wikipedia-derived sites
: Specifically, I can find no independent reviews of them.
* There are many other similar groups around the world, including others in the UK, who are similarly notable
* The section did not add to the topic - erotic art - but gave a particular POV
* That section was added by , who has not contributed to wikipedia since then.
--ClickRick (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Assoc. of E. Artists 

message: Erotic art should be merged with Erotica.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.159.52 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: It's been about a year and a half since I last tried to add some relevant cross-linking to the "Modern" section of this article. Now, I'm trying to do it again because I believe it's appropriate and needs to be included. If anyone has some suggestions about the particular wording, please help out. I also added some cross-linking to the "See also" section because I believe that's what it's for.
My website (EroticArtVillage.com) has been a comprehensive encyclopedic reference about Erotic Art for several years now. My analytic data confirms that people who search for "Erotic Art" are actually searching for additional information about the artists or work that I have added to the article.
I did not include reference to Erotic Art Village, because I don't want my edits confused for spamming or anything, ..but I think it should be included in the "External Links" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkerotic (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal cross-linking to relevant Wikipedia articles 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Fellatiomoche.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is there any evidence that Sheela na gig is erotic art?  As far as I'm aware (from the Wikipedia article on the topic. :P) it's believed to be anything from a fertility figure to a warning against lust to a ward against evil. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 02:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheela na gig? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: It's a little odd that "erotica" isn't mentioned in the article until a passing reference in the "History" section. I propose that we mention it in the lead, saying of erotic art that:  Any thoughts? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: as no objections have been raised. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed mention of erotica in lead 

message: Hello All! I plan on adding new content to the page as a part of a research project for school. Hope it can shed some light on specific topics!
Aigarcia4 (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding New Content