Nudes...?

[Randy]

Perhaps I am to critical, perhaps my tastes have changed over the years (duh), but I find that I am rather disappointed with the majority of the large format photographs of nude women that I come across. Of course, as long as the photographer is satisfied I guess that is what really counts, and I never offer an unsolicited critique. The problem I have is that the attempts are seldom inspiring (to me). Rather than try to describe what I find un inspiring, let me just say that so often it seems to me that, if the subject had of been fully clothed it would have been a mediocre portrait at best, and the fact that the subject is undressed does not make it any better. Nothing magical happens by being nude.
Let me admit that I do not photograph nudes, and never have.
Am I alone? Am I being to critical? Is it just like any other photographic subject, landscapes, trees, close-ups, there will be some that just don't do it for me...?

[Nodda Duma]

The way shadows and highlights play on bare skin make nudes a different subject than the fully clothed.

[Leigh]

The way shadows and highlights play on bare skin make nudes a different subject than the fully clothed.
Exactly.

- Leigh

[Greg]

I don't think that you are being too critical. Over the years have tried photographing nudes many times. I would think my resulting images were very good until I looked at them next to some of the nude photographs made by Wynn Bullock. "so often it seems to me that, if the subject had of been fully clothed it would have been a mediocre portrait at best" My images had always fitted that description.... they just didn't possess that magic element which I hope someone will attempt to describe in this thread.

[Jac@stafford.net]

A photograph of a beautiful woman is not necessarily a beautiful photograph. A photograph of a landscape is far more challenging in many more regards. The sun and moon do not pass over studio nudes until the light is right. The landscapes we see are usually better in every way from the nudes. I remember back to the nudes of some guy named Frank who just pushed his models into a corner of a room with white walls and snapped. It was all utter crap.
.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps I am to critical, perhaps my tastes have changed over the years (duh), but I find that I am rather disappointed with the majority of the large format photographs of nude women that I come across. Of course, as long as the photographer is satisfied I guess that is what really counts, and I never offer an unsolicited critique. The problem I have is that the attempts are seldom inspiring (to me). Rather than try to describe what I find un inspiring, let me just say that so often it seems to me that, if the subject had of been fully clothed it would have been a mediocre portrait at best, and the fact that the subject is undressed does not make it any better. Nothing magical happens by being nude.
Let me admit that I do not photograph nudes, and never have.
Am I alone? Am I being to critical? Is it just like any other photographic subject, landscapes, trees, close-ups, there will be some that just don't do it for me...?

I shot a few nudes 25 years ago. No more.

I no longer need to, or want to and my problem is 'Political'.

There I put it in writing. Which nearly guarantees somebody is going to want me to shoot nudes shortly. :(

[faberryman]

Am I being to critical?

I am not sure you can ever be to critical.

[Vaughn]

I photographed the nude in the landscape between 20 to 30 years ago, and not many sessions, perhaps a half-dozen. For the most part, the figure was small in the background. Traditional 1800's photographs in the redwoods either showed everyone, including women and children, all in the Sunday best, or showed just men with axes, over-sized cross-cut saws and half-cut trees. To counter those images, I thought a female, resting nude comfortably in the background would certainly do that. It was a good experience and I made some nice images. However, reading feminist writings and trying to understand the point of view concerning men's gaze, I did/do not wish to continue that small series.

I was able to take the experience of working with the figure in the landscape and create a series of my triplet boys in the landscape over a span 15 years or so. It has been very rewarding.

[Greg]

I am not sure you can ever be to critical.

In 1981 Harry Casimir de Rham wrote me in longhand!!! "to try to develop an attitude of tolerance and cheerfulness, and to remember the ironic fact that the perfection which can be drawn from within the depths of the human being can never be found in a machine."

[faberryman]

In 1981 Harry Casimir de Rham wrote me in longhand!!! "to try to develop an attitude of tolerance and cheerfulness, and to remember the ironic fact that the perfection which can be drawn from within the depths of the human being can never be found in a machine."

While the perfect may be the enemy of the good, so too is the good enough.

[Tin Can]

Maybe this is the right place and time to reveal a bit more. Maybe not, Mod's call.

I present this as pertinent to Vaughn's Male Gaze addition to this discussion.

The below link loads very slowly. NSFW.

A "Photograph of Marcel Duchamp and Eve Babitz posing for the photographer Julian Wasser during the Duchamp retrospective at the Pasadena Museum of Art, 1963
© 2000 Succession Marcel Duchamp, ARS, N.Y./ADAGP, Paris." (http://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_3/Notes/gerrard/pop_3.html) Got me thinking, 20 years ago that Marcel got it wrong. So I decided to make it right...

I enacted a Live Reversal of Role presentation of Duchamp's 1963 performance.

Set in Jane Byrne Room, Barat College, Lake Forest IL. Jane Byrne was the only female mayor, so far, of Chicago. I became the nude and a good friend played along. I set up art books with the original Duchamp image (http://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_3/Notes/gerrard/pop_3.html). 120 art students filled in and out, brought to this event by their instructors. The whole thing was well received, except by the Nuns. I set my Nikon F70 up and shot 24 slides of our performance before guests arrived.

This is a tiny file, to spare delicate readers. It is allowed on Facebook.

156587

[jp]

Nothing magical happens by being nude.


A hundred years ago the nudes in pictorialist photos abstracted the subject from time and place. (thus imagination == magic) They lack of victorian clothing gave photos a timeless aspect which reinforced the art themes they sought such as mythology. The choice of woods and rocks and landscape for surroundings for those nudes, and perhaps the printing craftsmanship choices, created a primeval world which was quite intentional. The sort of stuff we'd associate with Anne Brigman, Clarence H white, F Holland Day.... I don't mind mixing elements of contemporary and timeless so I differ from that.

I am inspired by their styles but not to the extent that I must copy them and require nudes, nor do I care about mythology subjects at the moment. I'm pretty sure it would just be misunderstood anyways, which is not entirely avoidable, but I do make an effort to communicate somewhat effectively with photography when there is actual subject matter. Seems like knowing the photographer is key to understanding the photos which contain their nudes. We most often don't know the photographer well enough to do that.... E.g. Sally Mann's are different than Frank P's which are different from Ben Rains which are different from Mortensen, etc...

As for your original question, it's not too critical. Perhaps it's being critical of insufficiently practiced creativity rather than nude subject matter. I wouldn't criticize anyone's nudes even if I did speak from experience in that style. I think of the image sharing here are a pinboard/corkboard for works in progress or trying new things and inspiring rather than full on portfolio review. Nothing has to be perfect or highly refined or above being critiquable.

[Drew Bedo]

every time I try to do some nude photography, I either catch a cold or get sunburned.

[Tin Can]

Got a PM!

Seems DuChamp is au currant.

My prior link is not downloading. The image I used for reference is in the below link.

http://www.robertbermangallery.com/exhibitions/julian-wasser-duchamp-in-pasadena?view=slider#28

I know a few other recreations were made of DuChamp's performance, but nobody reversed it. To my knowledge.

[Tim Meisburger]

To state the obvious, people share nudes because men like to look at naked women. That is normal and natural. We appreciate a naked woman whether or not the photograph is particularly good. So, a nude is not art because the person is nude, and the percentage of good nudes is probably the same as the percentage of good landscapes, but we are more likely to share a poor nude of a beautiful woman than we are a poorly photographed landscape.

That's my theory anyway.

[mike rosenlof]

I have shot nudes a handful of times. Taken two workshops about 20 years apart. From two session my favorite photo from each was the model while fully clothed. Most nudes of attractive young women don't have much more to say (to me at least) other than "nude young women are nice to look at".

I must be getting old or something... :)

[Lachlan 717]

http://www.robertbermangallery.com/exhibitions/julian-wasser-duchamp-in-pasadena?view=slider#28


From this link:

"In 1963 a long overdue retrospective for Marcel Duchamp, arguably the most significant and influential artist of the 20th century".

It is arguable. Very arguable that he was NOT the most significant, nor influential, artist of the 20th century...

[RSalles]

From this link:

"In 1963 a long overdue retrospective for Marcel Duchamp, arguably the most significant and influential artist of the 20th century".

It is arguable. Very arguable that he was NOT the most significant, nor influential, artist of the 20th century...

Agree. If not the most, one of them.

Cheers,

[jnantz]

Got a PM!

Seems DuChamp is au currant.

My prior link is not downloading. The image I used for reference is in the below link.

http://www.robertbermangallery.com/exhibitions/julian-wasser-duchamp-in-pasadena?view=slider#28

I know a few other recreations were made of DuChamp's performance, but nobody reversed it. To my knowledge.

great work randy, and thanks for the link :)
i wish i could have seen that exhibit.

when i was involved with the ignobel awards years ago
we sort of paid an homage to the chess game

it wasn't a chess game but it was narilyn vos savant
eating soup on-stage the whole ceremony.
not sure if it was mark's intent or he even knew of the chess match
but after seeing your photograph and the duchamp, im seeing
the similarities.

====
randy

no you are not being too critical.

most of the nudes i have seen are kind of lowest common denominator ( you can interpret that any way you want )
.. and if you read some of the comments ( or "view count" ) they seem to resonate with a lot of people ( you can interpret that any way you want too )

that said, some are great, and stand out as being quite beautiful, others less so.

like with everyting YMMV

[DrTang]

I mostly take portraits of people...who happen not to have clothing on

http://www.drtang.portfoliobox.net/gallery

and

http://thedrtang.portfoliobox.net/bigcamerabigfilm


and really don't care who or who does not like them

[Leigh]

Hi DrTang,

I really enjoy your work.

Unfortunately, your links to the work do not work in either Firefox or Safari.

- Leigh

[cowanw]

Perhaps I am to critical, perhaps my tastes have changed over the years (duh), but I find that I am rather disappointed with the majority of the large format photographs of nude women that I come across. Of course, as long as the photographer is satisfied I guess that is what really counts, and I never offer an unsolicited critique. The problem I have is that the attempts are seldom inspiring (to me). Rather than try to describe what I find un inspiring, let me just say that so often it seems to me that, if the subject had of been fully clothed it would have been a mediocre portrait at best, and the fact that the subject is undressed does not make it any better. Nothing magical happens by being nude.
Let me admit that I do not photograph nudes, and never have.
Am I alone? Am I being to critical? Is it just like any other photographic subject, landscapes, trees, close-ups, there will be some that just don't do it for me...?
I think it is very difficult to do a photograph with a nude aspect to the theme.
If a portrait is it a picture of a face with a nipple on show; which is the subject; is the composition made to flatter the portrait face or with the predetermined fact that the nudity must be incorporated and the face fit around it.
It seems to me that nudes need to make sense (as do all photographs) in that the subject must seem plausible in presentation and composition directed to the subject.
There needs to be a reason for the nude to be plunked on to the rock or for the hand to cup the breast in the portrait of a face.
Not to discount the form of light on skin as art, but just one subject at a time please

[Vaughn]

There is quite the model-industry (Model Mayhem, for example) to be considered. Workshops, too. Not an overly large industry, but pervasive. Some students help with college expenses by modeling for university art classes. A profession almost as old as paint. Nudes have been an exercise for art students for as long as there has been art students. Tradition and all that.

I will not run down anyone working with nudes, but I just hope the images are made respectfully and do not treat people as objects.

[DrTang]

that's weird


comes up on firefox on my PC





Hi DrTang,

I really enjoy your work.

Unfortunately, your links to the work do not work in either Firefox or Safari.

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

Comes up fine with Foxfire 48. and OS 10.6.8

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you are accessing from work, your system admin might be blocking.
.

[jnantz]

shows up on mine too im on safari ..

[Maris Rusis]

Frankly, the world does not need more pictures of pretty girls without their garments. And the nude in art would seem a desperately tired genre that has run out of things to say. But amazingly it isn't so in at least two ways.

The nude remains an eternal metaphoric space in which aspects of the human condition can be explored and commented upon. The unclad figure, taken out of humdrum context, becomes every-man or every-woman at any time or at all times. If you have a broad visual statement to make about humanity, uncluttered by the here-and-now, the particular, and the picayune, then the nude is what you should use.

It is a blessing born of long tradition that most people are familiar with the nude in art. They can accept the surface view, "this is so and so with their clothes off", and then pass beyond to read the underlying message. The tension between the nude as carnal and the nude as sublime has existed for a long time. Praxiteles (4th Century BCE) knew this when carved his Aphrodite for the city fathers of Knidos and employed his mistress, the famous courtesan Phryne, as the model. The city fathers were embarrassed (some knew Phryne "commercially") and grumpy but they paid Praxiteles fee and the statue became the most famous Aphrodite ever. Photography can likewise celebrate the clash between eros, as felt, and logos, as thought, and it can do it with wit and wisdom.

The second celebration of the nude that will never run dry is celebration of real beauty for its own sake. I think of "What a piece of work is man... Hamlet, Act 2, scene II" and assert that if we cannot admire our common humanity at its best then we fully deserve the miseries of body-denying asceticism. Heaven forfend! Beauty beyond the cliches of fashion and celebrity is everywhere and everywhere fading. The photographer's tout accosting women in the street with "C'mon luv have yer pitcher done. You'll never look more beautiful than today" spoke more truth than he knew. The ancient tombstone inscription "As you are now so once was I. As I am now you soon shall be" is grimly true as well. It is absolutely legitimate to use the photographic time machine to capture beauty in the here and now, a face, a nude, a sentiment carnal or chaste, and defend it against an uncaring past and an uncertain future.

My casual observations of photo-culture indicate photographers and nude models have sexual encounters more often than chance would allow. And it’s not through severe moral laxity from either party. People who model nude tend to be attractive, to be self-aware, and to be confident in projecting their attractiveness. Photographers tend to be highly responsive to exactly that same visual attractiveness. (That's why they become photographers in the first place.) The scene is set and human nature sometimes follows through. Harm or no, audiences titter.

There are exemplary figures in the art of the nude: Manuel Alvarez Bravo, all serious and intellectual, and Helmut Newton, all fun and naughty games, who never jumped the camera (ok, AFAIK). But even here a suspicion of prurience clings. It comes with the territory, it’s often unfair, and some people can’t abide it. Ansel Adams never photographed nudes but enjoyed looking at Edward Weston’s efforts.

A photograph of the nude is a conspiracy between the model and the photographer. It is not iron-clad certain every time who rules, the model or the photographer. Perhaps the ladies or the guys are performance artists who culminate their art by inveigling a man or woman with a camera, a factotum, to give their talent permanent form.

[Peter De Smidt]

If one of the requirements for justifiably taking a picture is that the world needs another photo of....., then few of us would be taking very many pictures, whether of a nude, landscape, or anything else.

[Tin Can]

Maris, you wrote well. Yours words ring true to me.

Art is often debated and sometimes not enough.

For the record, your nudes are sublime.

I gaze. :)

[Alan Gales]

There are good nudes and bad nudes just like there are good landscapes and bad landscapes and anything else being photographed. Yes, I agree that there are a lot of boring nudes out there but I just think it's because there is a lot of boring photography in general out there. Great art is not easy to do.

I took figure drawing 1, 2 and 3 in college to learn how to draw people. I'm not a prude but I have never shot a nude with a camera because I have never wanted to. I also don't do macro work. There is nothing wrong with either one and I enjoy other people's work but it's just not what I'm interested in doing myself.

[koraks]

We're all naked underneath our clothes. Why the hubbub about pictures of naked people?

[Peter Lewin]

The original post that started this thread posed a straight-forward question: were the criteria applied to nudes the same criteria applied to still life, landscape, etc. I think for the majority of viewers, the answer is "no" because of all the societal drives which associate nudity with sex. While there are clearly exceptions, most will spend more time looking at a nude image of an attractive woman than one not as good looking, most will spend more time looking at a female nude than a male nude, and so on. In fact, if I think of male nudes, many of the photographers who made the images were known to be attracted to men, so there again we have more than aesthetics at play. I would go so far as to suggest that some of the same issues are even at play in portraiture, where the portrait of an attractive individual usually gets more attention than a face with more character, although here the impact is far less than in nudes.

[koraks]

Of course there's more than aesthetics at play - at least more than the aesthetics of the photograph itself. So what?

Here's another straightforward question that has also popped up more often in discussions on nudes: how come when this issue pops up, so many people respond in an almost emotional way?

As far as I'm concerned, there are only two relevant criteria that apply to any photo when it comes to the question of it should be made:
Does the photographer feel compelled to make the image?
Is there any reasonable objection by the people (if any) captured in the image?
If "yes" to (1) and "no" to (2), then full force ahead.

Or, as popular Internet culture would formulate it: "haters gonna hate".

[Alan Gales]

Here's another straightforward question that has also popped up more often in discussions on nudes: how come when this issue pops up, so many people respond in an almost emotional way?


Religion and/or politics, social norms?

Remember just a few years ago in the U.S. when parents were being arrested for taking photos of their baby in the bathtub?

[Peter De Smidt]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.aaaban.com/books/In%2520English%2520Bertrand%2520Russell%2520collection/Bertrand%2520Russell%2520-%2520The%2520Metaphysician%27s%2520Nightmare.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjIkuDpkvnPAhWEhlQKHdvwAK4QFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNH4OTMNkH7Y181n89DCwoTQGhGm0g

[Vaughn]

Religion and/or politics, social norms?...

In our present society, the norm is to objectify women thru images. One recent (local) billboard that comes to mind is one advertising a fight-night (where locals can fight each other for money) at a local casino. Above and to the right of the image of two male fighters, are two scantily dressed women with the word "PRIZES!" above them. A not-too-subtle objectification of women as something to win, rather than to respect as individuals. I have decided not to participate in the further objectification of women thru photography. Even if taken with complete respect for the model, the image still can feed into the objectification. It goes beyond the relationship of the photographer and the model. This is just a personal choice and I certainly do not expect our patriarchal society to quickly change its way of viewing the female form.

[Jac@stafford.net]

In our present society, the norm is to objectify women thru images. [snip questionable allegory]

Vaughn, do you think it has always been that way? As a mental experiment consider that the nude was to remove clothing as a statement of style, the conventions of the time, so that the imaging (of any kind) could fit into the long-term fine art category of criticism?

[Leigh]

Clothing has always been a demonstration of status / wealth.

To eliminate that association and focus on the subject, one must remove the clothing.

- Leigh

[Alan Gales]

In our present society, the norm is to objectify women thru images. One recent (local) billboard that comes to mind is one advertising a fight-night (where locals can fight each other for money) at a local casino. Above and to the right of the image of two male fighters, are two scantily dressed women with the word "PRIZES!" above them. A not-too-subtle objectification of women as something to win, rather than to respect as individuals. I have decided not to participate in the further objectification of women thru photography. Even if taken with complete respect for the model, the image still can feed into the objectification. It goes beyond the relationship of the photographer and the model. This is just a personal choice and I certainly do not expect our patriarchal society to quickly change its way of viewing the female form.

Vaughn, my 22 year old daughter was recently telling me about how when she goes to the mall to buy clothes there are all these semi nude posters of women who look like prostitutes or porn stars plastered on the walls. A few years ago the style was drug addiction.

I fully agree with you that it's just sick how we objectify women through advertising in our society.

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, do you think it has always been that way? As a mental experiment consider that the nude was to remove clothing as a statement of style, the conventions of the time, so that the imaging (of any kind) could fit into the long-term fine art category of criticism?
It would be safe to say that art criticism has been here for as long as our patriarchal society has created art, so one would have fed the other in the development of the male gaze.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It would be safe to say that art criticism has been here for as long as our patriarchal society has created art, so one would have fed the other in the development of the male gaze.

Very good point. I believe that women look at other women with greater criticism than men do. What to make of that? I dunno!

[Alan Gales]

Very good point. I believe that women look at other women with greater criticism than men do. What to make of that? I dunno!

Just like that Van Morrison song where he sings about the women dressed up for each other! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2_HahKoe4

[Peter Lewin]

Vaughn, do you think it has always been that way? As a mental experiment consider that the nude was to remove clothing as a statement of style, the conventions of the time, so that the imaging (of any kind) could fit into the long-term fine art category of criticism?
To some extent, the question reminds me of those who used to read Playboy magazine for the articles. Two well known classical paintings jumped to mind. First, Goya's "Naked Maja" (unclothed woman reclining on a divan, reportedly the first classical painting to show pubic hair) which was commissioned for a private collector's "special room," which suggests the motivation (at least for the person commissioning the work). Second was Manet's "Dejeuner sur L'herb" (picnic scene, with a naked woman and fully clothed gentleman in the foreground) which reputedly titillated the viewing audience when it was first displayed, and raised the suggestion that painters possibly viewed their subjects differently from the general public. I think both examples suggest that the removal of clothing was more than a statement of style. The urge to look at naked younger women is probably hard-wired into the male DNA. Certainly held true for Pablo Picasso and Edward Weston.

[jnantz]

TManet's "Dejeuner sur L'herb" (picnic scene, with a naked woman and fully clothed gentleman in the foreground) which reputedly titillated the viewing audience when it was first displayed,

when the 80s band bow wow wow did their own version of that as the cover of their first LP
from what i remember, malcom mclaren (their producer) caught a lot of flack ...
it was tasteful but caused a stir because anabella lwin was 14 ...
here's an interview with her talking about the album cover &c ...
https://www.punknews.org/article/54610/interviews-annabella-lwin-bow-wow-wow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_Jungle!_See_Jungle!_Go_Join_Your_Gang_Yeah,_City_All_Over!_Go_Ape_Crazy!#/media/File:Seejungle.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Déjeuner_sur_l’herbe#/media/File:Edouard_Manet_-_Luncheon_on_the_Grass_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

[Willie]

There are nudes and there are 'nekked people'. Most are photographs of 'nekked people'.

[koraks]

Religion and/or politics, social norms?

Remember just a few years ago in the U.S. when parents were being arrested for taking photos of their baby in the bathtub?

Thank you for posting this, I thoroughly enjoyed it :)

[ValoPeikko]

If you photograph a nude human form, you're photographing human form. When you add clothes you add message to your work. I'm not saying all nudes are good or even remotely so. But it's not about undressing, it's about not dressing up to a role in the first place.

[DrTang]

If you photograph a nude human form, you're photographing human form. When you add clothes you add message to your work. I'm not saying all nudes are good or even remotely so. But it's not about undressing, it's about not dressing up to a role in the first place.

plus clothing goes out of date in a hurry - skin never does

[Alan Gales]

plus clothing goes out of date in a hurry - skin never does

Depends upon the skin. Back in the 80's I owned a pair of Tony Lama snake skin cowboy boots made from boa constrictor. They are probably out of style now. ;)

[Drew Bedo]

Isn't there about a 500 page thread on Nudes in the Imag Sharig forum?

[Wayne]

Isn't there about a 500 page thread on Nudes in the Imag Sharig forum?

yes, but that's an image sharing thread. When comments like these come up in it posters are maligned for expressing their opinions. Which may be appropriate, since it is an image sharing thread.

[neil poulsen]

If you photograph a nude human form, you're photographing human form. When you add clothes you add message to your work. I'm not saying all nudes are good or even remotely so. But it's not about undressing, it's about not dressing up to a role in the first place.

Well stated, I think. Thanks.

[neil poulsen]

We speak of nude photography in glorified terms of seeing how light falls on, and brings out the forms of the body, etc. But to those who do a lot of this work, just how much of its reward is outright, sexual titillation? This is a question with good intent. In spite of our Puritan heritage, I'm not suggesting necessarily that there's anything wrong with sexual titillation.

It seems like this must be a significant part of it. As some (male) photographers point out with seeming political correctness earlier in this thread, they photograph nude women. Of course, light can fall just as nicely on male forms, as on female. If titillation weren't part of it, the subject's sex, logically, wouldn't matter.

Certainly, viewing nude photography is a combination of seeing beautiful forms and sexual response.

Like others, I would point out, perhaps also with seeming political correctness, that I've photographed nudes in past workshops. But outside that venue, I don't take photographs of nudes. For some reason, I would be quite reluctant to do this. Hmm. Makes me wonder about myself; is there some impractical barrier that I face?

Just some meanderings. Things can become very complicated, when we inject sexual feelings into daily dealings. Perhaps rhetorically though, I do wonder about the original question. And if so, is there anything wrong with this?

[Thom Bennett]

as Elaine Benes said: "The female body is a work of art. The male body is utilitarian, it's for getting around. Like a Jeep."

[Tin Can]

A lot of women drive Jeeps.:)

[Wayne]

A lot of women drive Jeeps.:)

Yup. I've seen pictures.

[Roberto Rico]

Nudes...?

Perhaps I am to critical, perhaps my tastes have changed over the years (duh), but I find that I am rather disappointed with the majority of the large format photographs of nude women that I come across. Of course, as long as the photographer is satisfied I guess that is what really counts, and I never offer an unsolicited critique. The problem I have is that the attempts are seldom inspiring (to me). Rather than try to describe what I find un inspiring, let me just say that so often it seems to me that, if the subject had of been fully clothed it would have been a mediocre portrait at best, and the fact that the subject is undressed does not make it any better. Nothing magical happens by being nude.

Regarding the original comment- From your perspective, perhaps. Many images fail when stripped to their bear elements. It’s the dynamic of the individual elements that matter to me. The interplay. I place strong values on composition, light, texture and the skills employed. Sometimes the subject is incidental. I look at nudes the same way. For me, morality seldom figures into the equation, though there is often an emotional element to a truly dynamic image.

Too often, we try to read into it (the image), something that’s not there. We often project our own values onto the subject before us. It’s unavoidable. On the extreme, it’s like looking at a pure abstraction and trying to make sense of it. That’s when Art Critics and Art Historians step in and try to put a ‘spin on it’ for us (they have credentials, I don’t).

Sometimes Art is just what it is… nothing more. To be taken at face value. If I don’t like it, it’s strictly personal. That happens a lot. Especially when looking at what passes ’Fine Art Photography’ over the last few decades. I simply don’t get the majority of it. Much of it is lifeless, has no sense of composition, or created from hacked up images of other people’s work, But may possess some social message. Does a ‘message’ make it art? So that’s where I end- Does it stand on it’s own as art or not? Is it original art? As an artist/photographer, that’s my call, not the critics. I did read the entire thread before commenting.

Regarding exploitation of women in photography- I see my role as a photographer, as one who can leverage this bad stereotype for something more respectful, more artistic and less exploitive (though as photographers, that’s what we do, we exploit opportunities for images). We can be a positive force for change or not. Art has a long history of dealing with social issues. As mentioned above, more so now, than ever before. We could or should do the same.

[jim10219]

I've done a bit of nude art. Mostly paintings. I generally tend to avoid them anymore. The genre is a hard one to do well. There's only so many ways to pose and light a body, and most of the good ways have been done to death. So it's hard not to look like a derivative of another artist, or a complete hack. With other forms of portraiture, you're able to bring a lot more of the subject's personality into the picture. With a nude, it's really hard NOT to objectify the model. Of course it can be done, but usually the point of a nude photograph is to explore the light, form, general concept of being nude, or expression of sexuality. And all of those tend to treat the body as an object rather than a person. Usually, when trying to express a personality, and thus not objectify the person but celebrate their individuality, clothing and other props become more relevant in order to help to reinforce these personality traits. Plus, as others have mentioned, there's the sexual gratification crowd and the sexually deviant crowd that love to dip into the nude art scene. And there's nothing wrong with that. Robert Mapplethorpe was a genius at blurring those lines and exploring the world of pornography without leaving the art world. They can exist in harmony. But it can put a bit of a stain on the integrity of nude art at the point where it shares that border with pornography if not done with a deft hand. Those dividing lines can become blurred when approached from either direction, which may or may not be a bad thing. But I think most would agree that there's a difference between pure art and pure pornography and on certain levels, they're not equal.

It's also kind of the low hanging fruit for the budding artist. I definitely notice a lot of people who think it must be art simply because it's got a nude in it. And it must be good because it's technically well executed. Therefore it's seen as an easy entrance into creating good art if you haven't developed an eye for what actual good art is. So the nude art market is flooded with novices, poorly skilled veterans, pornographers, and deviants. Which is cool. There's room enough for everyone. But if you're coming at it from the perspective of looking for good art, it's going to take a bit more work than it would in most other genres for the viewer to find it.

[Roberto Rico]

“The market is flooded… but there is room enough for everybody”

What does that mean exactly? That there is so much work on nudes out there (poor or not), that there is little hope of generating income from it? Or that there are still more buyers looking for ‘works of art’, if you know how to reach them? Those with money for fine art (and I’m not talking about machine prints made to cover bear walls for interior decorators), seldom have time to do their own ‘searching’. They pay middlemen to bring them work to consider. Hence the use of galleries and art reps. But the middlemen always extract their pound of flesh.

Or something else?

I’m not sure Mapplethorpe is the exception, but the type of artist who knows how to break out from the rest of the humdrum. Much like Andy Warhol did. Pushing social limits has always been a way to gain exposure and notoriety in the ‘Art Press’. Some of us abhor the ‘fame’, but you seldom get to ‘fortune’ without it. Fortunately, my own ambitions are a lot less grandiose.

Much of this discussion is outside the concerns of Large Format Photography. By it’s very nature, it is hard to create images that don’t look deliberate, contrived. That seldom meshes with shooting contemporary nudes where some connection with the subject, at the point of tripping the shutter, is concerned. But then ALL of those very early nudes were formally posed. Exposures were in the realm of a few seconds to as much as a minute. Bellocq in New Orleans was busy pushing those limits. Nor was all his effort aimed at shooting nudes, but that is what he will be remembered for. Were his images art? Or simply social commentary? I can’t speak to his motives, but I admire his dedication.