Nude

[Philippe Grunchec]

Mark, don't forget Paul Strand and Rebecca!

[Frank Petronio]

I think the most perverted, twisted thing is playing it politically correct and claiming there is no sexuality involved with making or viewing nude images, in spite of being part of a culture that strongly associates nudity with sexual themes.

If a photographer does a close up of a young woman's breasts or box and then steps back and claim to be all egalitarian and asexual... bullshit.

Certainly it is wrong to make unwelcomed advances, like a photographer touching a model. But it's also stupid and wrong-headed of the model to put herself into that situation, even if she is legally and morally right -- it's called having good sense. If you're a young woman taking off her clothes in front of some horny photographer who might be interested in them, then they still have the legal right and expectation not to be molested... but nothing prevents creepiness.

A good old Penthouse-Hustler nude, with some fantastical woman posed in a suggestive position is a lot more honest than most of the "art nudes" I see. And the Hustler model knows exactly what she is getting herself into and is being compensated... which is a lot more than what most crunchy college girls in art classes get themselves into.

Sorry, I don't see the point of doing nudes if you're going to deny the sexuality involved. If there isn't some sort of connection with the model, if not attraction and sexual energy, then what are they then? Slabs of meat?

[Ash]

Venus Naturalis

[Mark Sawyer]

...If there isn't some sort of connection with the model, if not attraction and sexual energy, then what are they then? Slabs of meat?

Maybe they're the formal element in one of the oldest and strongest traditions in art. Maybe they're people...

I wouldn't deny that there's a sexual aspect to the naked human form in an image, or that it is part of the chemistry when the image is being made. And yes, if there's a dirty old man trying to get some naive young thing to take off her clothes under the pretext of "art photography", then yeah, it's creepy.

But would you call Paul Gauguin's paintings of half-naked Tahitian women creepy? Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon? Andrew Wyeth's drawings of Helga?

[Frank Petronio]

No, I think denying the attraction is creepy, not acknowledging it.

It doesn't mean always acting on it, for whatever reason (from morals, fear, absurdity, etc.).

So I don't find most nudes in art creepy. I find the PC-party line creepy. And I think a lot of photographers concoct rather pained rationalizations to get around what is, in the end, a basic human instinct.

[Scott Walker]

But would you call Paul Gauguin's paintings of half-naked Tahitian women creepy?

Considering Gauguin's work depicted nude and semi nude women, some of which seem to be rather young, and since this was all from his imagination and not what he was actually seeing.......yes very creepy.

[Emil Schildt]

In only my opinion, of course, the very best nudes were done by photographers who were intimate with their models, but the best of their work was done long after the intimate relationship was established; Alfred Steiglitz and Georgia O'Keefe, Callahan and his wife Eleanor, even Weston in his multiple relationships (Modotti, Noskowiak, Wilson) seems to have done his best work well into the relationships.

so do you think the pictures got better because of that relationship? Or is it a coincidence?

I agree with Frank, that a form of sexuality most often will be present, when doing nude photography.

And I also think many, many photographers lie, if they claim there's not. Also to them selves...

I don't think a sexual relationship will make my images better - but they will make them different...

I have made hundreds of nudes of my girlfriend, and because of our relationship, we trust each other compleately, and thereby we can make pictures we couldn't have done, if we were not involved.

But I have also made hundreds of nudes witk models that I didn't have a sexual relation with, and they were just different - maybe they contain a certain tension?

Not better - not worse - just different.

[Oren Grad]

But I have also made hundreds of nudes witk models that I didn't have a sexual relation with, and they were just different - maybe they contain a certain tension?

Not better - not worse - just different.

Do viewers who do not know about the nature of your relationships with your various models see a difference?

[Emil Schildt]

Do viewers who do not know about the nature of your relationships with your various models see a difference?

I can't tell you - I reacted to Marks comment on the late photographers and their nudes.

Maybe when I am dead - and if people know what models I was involved with - they would state that those images was my best?

impossible question I know.

[Thom Bennett]

Reminds me of a lecture I attended about the nude in photography (is it porn or is it art?) and the lecturer pointed out that most "art" nudes are close ups of the torso while most "porn" nudes (Hustler, Penthouse, etc.) shows the model's face as well. His contention was that when the model's face was in the photo, especially looking directly into the camera, it was a more direct turn-on because the viewer was seemingly engaged with another person.