George Kara - thank you for your sage comments. We're all nude under our clothes. We all have things to say. Even those who are lucky enough to be pretty as young women are going to get older - and their bodies might have alot more to say than "look at me, I'm desirable".
It isn't the subject that is the issue. Its the shutter clicker who treats young women as breasts, vagina's and pretty faces. Sticking a woman in a landscape makes about as much difference as choosing a different pair of lingerie for the model. Many of these women have lots to say but aren't valued for their emotional, spiritual or intellectual abilities. Its their looks that the shutter clicker is interested in - period.
It takes imagination to find the special, unique quality of a woman, expressed through the unclothed figure. While there are many technically competent people behind the lens, there are very very few with the gift of imagination or expressiveness.
I am glad you asked Peter.
Image 1 is a hybrid photo/painting. The Tiepolo is a photo I took within the Getty museum. It is the platform on which the work was created. I was playing with the idea of depth of field as an influence on the digital painting. No tracing or special effects used.
Image 2 is a theme and variation drawing with subtle and not so subtle variations on the figure. When viewed live the work is suspended and constantly moving forcing the viewer to track the drawing.
Image 3 is the working drawing for the oil painting that follows. Initially the figure was intended to be somehow symbolic of a woman in the position of crucifiction while the her legs pierced the canvas. The actual painting moved away from this theme.
Image 4 is the still unfinished oil painting. Approx 6'x 4.5"
These works are not particular outstanding compared to others I have created but rather related to the question of the use of the nude in imagery.
My medium happens to primarily be painting, yours most likely is photography. Whatever the medium you happen to use is not important. It is the content that is the essence of the artist.
I use LF for mostly reproduction or reference purposes, hence my interest in this fine forum.
George
George,
Thank you for posting some examples, and I agree with you that variety in treatment is a desirable thing, many photographs of the nude are quite vulgar, and that not all nudes of women should just be about "breast's, vagina's and pretty faces." That said, I don't see how your paintings convey your model's "emotional, spiritual or intellectual abilities." That's not a bad thing, as I don't think doing so is what a nude study is about, whether a painting or a photograph. That sounds more like an ideal of a portrait than a nude. For me, the aim of an nude study meant as a piece of art is more universal than particular. It's not so much about the model as it is about conveying an aspect of femininity (or masculinity). Moreover, beauty may not be the only valuable artistic goal, but many people do still value it.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Here is one of mine.
Jim
photo?
Highly manipulated 18x24 neg.
I scratched some images and the first line of the Songs of Songs by Solomon (the bible)
just did - no particular reason...
and:
I found an old negative - painted with light. the negative was covered with light leaks so I decided to ruin it all together.....
then I made a print using liquid emulsion, with random brush strokes - bleached this out, and made a multi coloured bromoil..
...I also try to make sharp images...:-)
Anna with creme fraiche...
Bookmarks