New Figure magazine

[Robert Brummitt]

Has anyone seen or looked at this magazine, "Carrie Leigh's Nude"? Its in its fourth issue. This is the first time I seen it. I went to the website and it's a strictly black and white magazine from what I can see. It's issues have Leonard Nimoy and Lucien Clergue photography and this issue and the last one has interviews with Kim Weston.
The price is $9.95 but before I plunk down the money I wanted to see if anyone else had bought it or seen it. It's packaged in plastic so I can't bourse before buying.
Give me your thoughts, Please. It reminds me of another magazine long ago published and edited by photographer Jeff Dunas. That magazine introduced me to Brett Weston's underwater images.
:) :)

[D. Bryant]

Has anyone seen or looked at this magazine, "Carrie Leigh's Nude"? Its in its fourth issue. This is the first time I seen it. I went to the website and it's a strictly black and white magazine from what I can see. It's issues have Leonard Nimoy and Lucien Clergue photography and this issue and the last one has interviews with Kim Weston.
The price is $9.95 but before I plunk down the money I wanted to see if anyone else had bought it or seen it. It's packaged in plastic so I can't bourse before buying.
Give me your thoughts, Please. It reminds me of another magazine long ago published and edited by photographer Jeff Dunas. That magazine introduced me to Brett Weston's underwater images.
:) :)
Judging from the covers on the web site it looks like soft porn / glamor nudes.

Don Bryant

[Jim Noel]

I wouild not classify the images as soft porn, or any other kind of porn. The issues I have seeb have contained very well lit and photographed female bodies but they are certainly not erotic, or sexually stimulating, or porn of any kind.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you go to the site, you can flip through a few pages of the magazine, including the table of contents and a few pictures, most of which were pretty cheesy. Every issue of "Carrie Leigh's Nude" has a cover shot by Carrie Leigh, an interview by Carrie Leigh, an article on Carrie Leigh, and a photo layout by Carrie Leigh. Pretty much a vanity publication.

[Robert Brummitt]

If you go to the site, you can flip through a few pages of the magazine, including the table of contents and a few pictures, most of which were pretty cheesy. Every issue of "Carrie Leigh's Nude" has a cover shot by Carrie Leigh, an interview by Carrie Leigh, an article on Carrie Leigh, and a photo layout by Carrie Leigh. Pretty much a vanity publication.


Ok here is me sounding really old and just stepped out from a cave.
Who is Carrie Leigh and why?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I thought the name was a pun on one of the pioneers of photographic chemistry (am I a geek or what?), but that seems to be her name. It turns out she's an ex-model, former _Playboy_ playmate, turned photographer.

[Duane Polcou]

I've seen all four issues. They feature fine art nude photography. In this day and age, "fine art nude photography" seems to mean black and white or toned imagery versus color, and content intended to be metaphorical, or at least to emphasize form and shape rather than sexuality. As in, "this sepia toned picture of a woman lying in the lotus position on a giant paper mache scrotum represents North Korea's inhumanity to plankton" . Stuff like that.

I just think "fine art nude photography" is a smokescreen for photographers to get attractive women (and men) naked and pretend as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots.

"Ohhhh noooo. I don't do cheesecake. How dare you, sir. I do art. I'm an artist. Because my models don't wear makeup and I posed them in front of a fern and I used a wooden camera and they're printed in sepia. Are you blind?"

At least Helmut Newton had the cajuengas to admit he was a perv.

Are pictures still art if someone whacks off to them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, will Michael Fatali be blamed?

Take Jock Sturges. 13 year old girls with pouty lips posing naked. Ahem. Ohh noo, that's art. Because he used a view camera and it's in Black and White and EVERYONE was naked because that's how they live and no one EVER thinks of sex even when they're all naked with pouty lips and even their dogs are naked with pouty lips so get your mind out of the gutter!!

And you wonder why Christie Brinkley's ex husband has a porn addiction. He should have gotten a view camera, and viewed the porn on his computer screen through the ground glass. Then, you know, he's an artist.

[z_photo]

i suspect you fully supported the covering of statues of nudes in order to save our delicate eyes from the horror that is the human body?
afterall, they are from the government, and they are (hopefully soon 'were') here to protect us!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm

[Per Madsen]

i suspect you fully supported the covering of statues of nudes in order to save our delicate eyes from the horror that is the human body?
afterall, they are from the government, and they are (hopefully soon 'were') here to protect us!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm

I thought that Queen Victoria was dead !

[Marko]

I thought that Queen Victoria was dead !

Funny how most puritans are either ugly, fat or dried-out women or men married to them! :D

[Frank Petronio]

haha I actually agree with Duane for once, good post

[W K Longcor]

Looks like we are into the what's "clean" and what's "dirty" business. I've always been of the opinion that each and every image deserves its own critique. I never heard of Carrie Leigh before this -- so I went to the web site -- and had a great laugh! The photographs shown -- are technically excellent -- for a 1950's girly magazine. Sure they are updated -- but they remind me of the old "Bunny Yeager" books -- nude model turns photographer. Seems like very contrived poses. But each to his own.

I find some Hamilton and Jock Sturges work to be pushing the limits -- I also find a lot of their work to be fantastic photography. Somehow, our puritanical ancestory has us convinced that if the models are young -- it must be dirty. What a shame!

I've interpreted the bible a little different than some other people -- when GOD asked Adam and Eve "Who told you you were naked?" -- since GOD is all knowing, he already knew -- therefore it must have been a retorical question. Stop and think -- who told you? satan? Well, must be satan who thinks naked is dirty -- not GOD.

Now, as for that new magazine --- I ain't wasting my money!:rolleyes:

[Frank Petronio]

That's just it though -- in spite of the art world praise for Jock Sturges (and commercial acclaim for Hamilton) -- they are probably just as horny towards their models as anyone else, although I am sure they are professional as well. Pictures of beautiful naked women are sexual and it is silly to deny it.

Scary thing is that I know some of the models in that magazine and they're proud of being in it. I don't think it's high art but it is classier than, say, being in Hustler.

[W K Longcor]

That's just it though -- in spite of the art world praise for Jock Sturges (and commercial acclaim for Hamilton) -- they are probably just as horny towards their models as anyone else, although I am sure they are professional as well. Pictures of beautiful naked women are sexual and it is silly to deny it.



Point well taken. As humans, we have a NEED to reproduce. That goes over into being "interested" in the body of the opposite sex. The important thing -- in this case "as a photographer" -- remain professional.

[Haris]

I've seen all four issues. They feature fine art nude photography. In this day and age, "fine art nude photography" seems to mean black and white or toned imagery versus color, and content intended to be metaphorical, or at least to emphasize form and shape rather than sexuality. As in, "this sepia toned picture of a woman lying in the lotus position on a giant paper mache scrotum represents North Korea's inhumanity to plankton" . Stuff like that.

I just think "fine art nude photography" is a smokescreen for photographers to get attractive women (and men) naked and pretend as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots.

"Ohhhh noooo. I don't do cheesecake. How dare you, sir. I do art. I'm an artist. Because my models don't wear makeup and I posed them in front of a fern and I used a wooden camera and they're printed in sepia. Are you blind?"

At least Helmut Newton had the cajuengas to admit he was a perv.

Are pictures still art if someone whacks off to them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, will Michael Fatali be blamed?

Take Jock Sturges. 13 year old girls with pouty lips posing naked. Ahem. Ohh noo, that's art. Because he used a view camera and it's in Black and White and EVERYONE was naked because that's how they live and no one EVER thinks of sex even when they're all naked with pouty lips and even their dogs are naked with pouty lips so get your mind out of the gutter!!

And you wonder why Christie Brinkley's ex husband has a porn addiction. He should have gotten a view camera, and viewed the porn on his computer screen through the ground glass. Then, you know, he's an artist.

Totally agree. That old pervert Michellangelo Buonaroti, he even dare to paint naked children in Sixtine chappel.. Oh, wait, he called them angels, and it was 600 years ago.

Now, was Michellangelo artist or just old pervert?

:)

[Robert Brummitt]

What about the work of the Weston's, of Bernhard, of Cunningham, of Casanave? Many of these noted names used large format cameras. Where does their work if in? I posted a flyer of Martha's work on another site and got band saying the work was not what this site supported but they posted work of clothed models in poses that was much more suggestive then most straight figure work.

[Frank Petronio]

Weston did make art. He also did his models. I don't know about the ladies predilictions, but I love the photo of Imogen and Twinkle.

[Greg Lockrey]

Totally agree. That old pervert Michellangelo Buonaroti, he even dare to paint naked children in Sixtine chappel.. Oh, wait, he called them angels, and it was 600 years ago.

Now, was Michellangelo artist or just old pervert?

:)

Being that Michellangelo's models were male, one wonders.... :rolleyes:

[chris_4622]

I like the one Charis quoted in an interview:
While Titian was mixing rose madder
his model was perched on a ladder
The position to Titian suggested coition
so he ran up the ladder and had her.

[Captain_joe6]

Picked up a copy today, my second. Somebody there seems to have a very good relationship with Kim Weston, and the interviews with him keep are enough to keep me coming back.

[ZoeWiseman]

Duane,

Are you on crack?

While I don't submit or look at vanity publications such as this one - which is no where near Dunas's acclaimed Collector's Photography magazine which was actually a magazine and not a platform for him to promote himself... in fact he only showcased his work ONE TIME in the several monthly magazines he put out for the few years. It hurts to hear it compared to this magazine.

What a shame that a post like this is allowed to stay on such a great forum for learning! I don't normally post in the forums - but this rhetoric and pure hatred for anything different from what this person does or is or stands for is just plain idiocracy! So - You've sprung me from my hiding spot in order to shake my finger at you. Shame on you.

Zoe Wiseman


I've seen all four issues. They feature fine art nude photography. In this day and age, "fine art nude photography" seems to mean black and white or toned imagery versus color, and content intended to be metaphorical, or at least to emphasize form and shape rather than sexuality. As in, "this sepia toned picture of a woman lying in the lotus position on a giant paper mache scrotum represents North Korea's inhumanity to plankton" . Stuff like that.

I just think "fine art nude photography" is a smokescreen for photographers to get attractive women (and men) naked and pretend as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots.

"Ohhhh noooo. I don't do cheesecake. How dare you, sir. I do art. I'm an artist. Because my models don't wear makeup and I posed them in front of a fern and I used a wooden camera and they're printed in sepia. Are you blind?"

At least Helmut Newton had the cajuengas to admit he was a perv.

Are pictures still art if someone whacks off to them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, will Michael Fatali be blamed?

Take Jock Sturges. 13 year old girls with pouty lips posing naked. Ahem. Ohh noo, that's art. Because he used a view camera and it's in Black and White and EVERYONE was naked because that's how they live and no one EVER thinks of sex even when they're all naked with pouty lips and even their dogs are naked with pouty lips so get your mind out of the gutter!!

And you wonder why Christie Brinkley's ex husband has a porn addiction. He should have gotten a view camera, and viewed the porn on his computer screen through the ground glass. Then, you know, he's an artist.

[Dave Wooten]

Welcome back Zoe!

[Paul Jones]

i suspect you fully supported the covering of statues of nudes in order to save our delicate eyes from the horror that is the human body?
afterall, they are from the government, and they are (hopefully soon 'were') here to protect us!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm

Perhaps Ashcroft doesn't like being compared to other boobs.

[Robert Brummitt]

Duane,



While I don't submit or look at vanity publications such as this one - which is no where near Dunas's acclaimed Collector's Photography magazine which was actually a magazine and not a platform for him to promote himself... in fact he only showcased his work ONE TIME in the several monthly magazines he put out for the few years. It hurts to hear it compared to this magazine.


Zoe Wiseman

Before we get too ugly. As the Original post person, I was comparing Duna's magazine to this new one that it was about fine art figure photography. It's not about his work or hers. It's about that I saw Carrie's on the bookshelf and remembered Jeff's having the same theme. It was an innocent thought. If I offended you, Zoe or Mr. Dunas. I'm sorry.
But as you also stated that this forum is for knowledge. I was asking if anyone had any knowledge of this magazine? I wanted knowledge before I buy it. So, don't get angry at me or bitter that I asked for knowledge.

[ZoeWiseman]

Before we get too ugly. As the Original post person, I was comparing Duna's magazine to this new one that it was about fine art figure photography. It's not about his work or hers. It's about that I saw Carrie's on the bookshelf and remembered Jeff's having the same theme. It was an innocent thought. If I offended you, Zoe or Mr. Dunas. I'm sorry.
But as you also stated that this forum is for knowledge. I was asking if anyone had any knowledge of this magazine? I wanted knowledge before I buy it. So, don't get angry at me or bitter that I asked for knowledge.

Robert - I wasn't really angry at you - I just read that diatribe Duane spewed and my eyes crossed.

Dunas's magazine was truly a work of art. He treated it exactly the way a magazine should be treated. It was printed beautifully and well... that magazine led me to what I do today and I've had the privilege of working with Dunas on a few projects. The Palm Springs Photo Festival and I also modeled for him. He's a selfless individual who is constantly DOING for others, yet isn't out there with his ego swinging. He's cool about it. Even though he deserves to swing his ego a bit, he doesn't.

This Carrie Leigh, just looking at the magazine a couple times, is nothing like that. The majority of the magazine is about her. So, if you want to read all about Carrie, go for it and get the magazine. She is good about showcasing new coming photographers, but her taste is like bad Malibu design... you know, the gold purses and shaggy hair walking the little pooch or carrying it in the purse... apply that to her taste in photography and well, you can get a gist about the magazine. Lucky for her there isn't another nude magazine out there so these photographers have no outlet for their work. So, she gets these famous people to put their work in the mag (as there's no other mag to compete with her) and she gets to use them to promote herself. This isn't about the art - it's about Carrie. I've never met her, but that was my impression of the magazine. It is printed well - but still - well printed pinup is still pinup, not fine art. And she LOVES to show you her work - in EVERY ISSUE!

[domenico Foschi]

I've seen all four issues. They feature fine art nude photography. In this day and age, "fine art nude photography" seems to mean black and white or toned imagery versus color, and content intended to be metaphorical, or at least to emphasize form and shape rather than sexuality. As in, "this sepia toned picture of a woman lying in the lotus position on a giant paper mache scrotum represents North Korea's inhumanity to plankton" . Stuff like that.

I just think "fine art nude photography" is a smokescreen for photographers to get attractive women (and men) naked and pretend as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots.

"Ohhhh noooo. I don't do cheesecake. How dare you, sir. I do art. I'm an artist. Because my models don't wear makeup and I posed them in front of a fern and I used a wooden camera and they're printed in sepia. Are you blind?"

At least Helmut Newton had the cajuengas to admit he was a perv.

Are pictures still art if someone whacks off to them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, will Michael Fatali be blamed?

Take Jock Sturges. 13 year old girls with pouty lips posing naked. Ahem. Ohh noo, that's art. Because he used a view camera and it's in Black and White and EVERYONE was naked because that's how they live and no one EVER thinks of sex even when they're all naked with pouty lips and even their dogs are naked with pouty lips so get your mind out of the gutter!!

And you wonder why Christie Brinkley's ex husband has a porn addiction. He should have gotten a view camera, and viewed the porn on his computer screen through the ground glass. Then, you know, he's an artist.


Well, what can I say....
You seem to have defined the true intentions in artists in general for working with the human body, from painters to sculptors to photographers etc.
Finally someone spoke the truth, and in the process you have also accused Jock Sturges of criminal beahviour, good for you, Duane!

And I can also understand how you, being a person who obviously has spent so much time studying the distorted behaviour of these people, is suffering from getting stuck in that same frame of mind. It almost seems as everything is "dirty" to you, just like a talented actor gets stuck in the part....

[Duane Polcou]

Zoe:

Pure hatred? How I posted that was tongue-in-cheek, I thought it was hilarious. Must be a Jersey thing.

People in LA have no sense of humor. Tattoos and earthquakes. It's like being shipwrecked on Krakatoa but the natives all have agents.

This is not only a great forum for learning. It is a great forum for sarcasm, humor, baiting, condecension, pettiness, egotism, glad-handing of and to those who should not quit their day job, gear-headedness, comeraderie, opinionism, and the ad nauseum use of the phrase "Are you on crack?"

My point is that homo sapiens have an instantaneous, sub-concious, and involuntary mental reaction to seeing nudity which has as it's root sexual reproduction. This reaction may not always lead to arousal, it may not take the form of action or aggression, but it is one of assessment.

Is this person male or female? Are they old or young? Are they attractive to me or unattractive to me? People who claim that they only see "beauty" in nudity, as though their reaction is on the same level as viewing a sunset, and deny any sexual thought process, are basically saying they've found a way to override millions of years of patterned behavior ingrained as part of our reproductive agenda. Simply put, I just do not believe them.

But certain people seem to think that the only correct response to "fine art nude photography" is one of the appreciation of beauty and the respect of artistic message, and should sex enter the equation, you are somehow a clueless pervert.

The artistic dialogue is just that, a dialogue between creator and viewer. Jock Sturges is most likely a very intelligent man. I find it difficult to believe that he would not assume or even consider that a percentage of his collector base consists of those whose' eventual response to images of nude children is one of arousal. In effect, despite his purely artistic intentions, he is contributing material to be consumed by these individuals. If he denies this, then he is telling the world how they should respond to his work rather than accepting he has no control over it.

You have a zillion ways of getting your message across. You can photograph anything and everything present in this world. But if you choose nudity as part of your visual process and pretend to negate a sexual component then you must have God or Marvel Comics on speed dial because you have super powers. And it's those people who shake their finger at me about mentioning sex that I find hypocritical. I don't hate them. I just think they're full of their own crap.

[ZoeWiseman]

Zoe:

Pure hatred? How I posted that was tongue-in-cheek, I thought it was hilarious. Must be a Jersey thing.

People in LA have no sense of humor. Tattoos and earthquakes. It's like being shipwrecked on Krakatoa but the natives all have agents.

This is not only a great forum for learning. It is a great forum for sarcasm, humor, baiting, condecension, pettiness, egotism, glad-handing of and to those who should not quit their day job, gear-headedness, comeraderie, opinionism, and the ad nauseum use of the phrase "Are you on crack?"

My point is that homo sapiens have an instantaneous, sub-concious, and involuntary mental reaction to seeing nudity which has as it's root sexual reproduction. This reaction may not always lead to arousal, it may not take the form of action or aggression, but it is one of assessment.

Is this person male or female? Are they old or young? Are they attractive to me or unattractive to me? People who claim that they only see "beauty" in nudity, as though their reaction is on the same level as viewing a sunset, and deny any sexual thought process, are basically saying they've found a way to override millions of years of patterned behavior ingrained as part of our reproductive agenda. Simply put, I just do not believe them.

But certain people seem to think that the only correct response to "fine art nude photography" is one of the appreciation of beauty and the respect of artistic message, and should sex enter the equation, you are somehow a clueless pervert.

The artistic dialogue is just that, a dialogue between creator and viewer. Jock Sturges is most likely a very intelligent man. I find it difficult to believe that he would not assume or even consider that a percentage of his collector base consists of those whose' eventual response to images of nude children is one of arousal. In effect, despite his purely artistic intentions, he is contributing material to be consumed by these individuals. If he denies this, then he is telling the world how they should respond to his work rather than accepting he has no control over it.

You have a zillion ways of getting your message across. You can photograph anything and everything present in this world. But if you choose nudity as part of your visual process and pretend to negate a sexual component then you must have God or Marvel Comics on speed dial because you have super powers. And it's those people who shake their finger at me about mentioning sex that I find hypocritical. I don't hate them. I just think they're full of their own crap.

Yeah - it must be a Jersey thing because you just said the exact same thing over again but just reworded your diatribe.

I must be Wonder Woman then - I don't make fine art nudes because of sexual attraction - I photograph women, I'm a woman - and a very heterosexual woman to boot. So... you've not grasped the concept. Instead of mocking it and shunning it like a bible thumper for Pat Roberts, why don't you ask questions and learn about it? Treat it like that piece of equipment you don't know anything about, because you obviously know nothing about fine art nudes. You know the guy who gets online and goes on and on about large format photography and how he knows everything about it but he doesn't own one large format camera... that's you right now. And after seeing your glamour photos (which are technically good) on Model Mayhem after googling you... I am extremely confused since you obviously photograph sex based work. Lots of people are full of their own crap, but this is a topper!

I don't know why you've brought up Jock Sturges. He isn't the end all be all of fine art nude photography. If you're basing your assumptions upon only his work then you have a lot of catching up to do.

[Greg Lockrey]

:eek: Ouch!!! Did someone just step on their tongue? :eek:

[Duane Polcou]

Zoe

So you are very confused. Is it like,

"Who does this bible thumper Pat Roberts wannabee think he is, passing judgement on fine art nude photography?" .

And then you Google me and see borderline soft core glamour nudes?

So I'm not a bible thumper but a nationally published glamour photographer with 22 years experience and about 1000 tear sheets?

I see the confusion. I googled you, too. Nice. Nice. Nice. And your photos were good, too :o)

[Greg Lockrey]

:D :D :D Chicken!....

[Marko]

Some threads on this board are like a ho-hum hockey game - they'd be entirely forgettable if it weren't for the fights... ;)

[Robert Brummitt]

Robert - I wasn't really angry at you - I just read that diatribe Duane spewed and my eyes crossed.

Dunas's magazine was truly a work of art. He treated it exactly the way a magazine should be treated. It was printed beautifully and well... that magazine led me to what I do today and I've had the privilege of working with Dunas on a few projects. The Palm Springs Photo Festival and I also modeled for him. He's a selfless individual who is constantly DOING for others, yet isn't out there with his ego swinging. He's cool about it. Even though he deserves to swing his ego a bit, he doesn't.



I met Mr. Dunas at the Silver conference and was very happy to do so. I have his card right here by my monitor. He does seem to be a very nice gentleman. I had some of his issues when I was first starting my photographic journey. As I said before the magazine introduced me to Brett Weston's work. I had sold those issues plus Dunas one book. I wanted to buy a new lens. Sometimes, I wish I still had those issues and book. I enjoyed his use of color and light.
I'm sadden that this thread is taking a different venue then it originally was intended.

[Duane Polcou]

Robert. Wanting to be opinionated and contrary on this topic I should have started my own thread rather than hijack yours. I apologize.

[QT Luong]

I googled you, too. Nice. Nice. Nice. And your photos were good, too :o)

I particularly liked this line: "I am way better than an ink jet print. "

[domenico Foschi]

I particularly liked this line: "I am way better than an ink jet print. "

Although less archival.....

[Mark Sawyer]

I particularly liked this line: "I am way better than an ink jet print. "

Ahh, but we all started out as a little giclée... :rolleyes:

[domenico Foschi]

Mark, are we going back to porn?
Are you telling me Duane is right?

[Robert Brummitt]

Robert. Wanting to be opinionated and contrary on this topic I should have started my own thread rather than hijack yours. I apologize.

That's OK. I understand that we all once in awhile like to rock the boat but I get a little sea sick. I don't even like it when my kids like to rock in my chair.
Zoe, the gang at APUG are all wondering where you went off to. Look for this thread on that Forum. Many there are missing you.

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, are we going back to porn?
Are you telling me Duane is right?

As part of the animal kingdom, I think a universal base reaction to it is bred into us all. Perhaps some us us get past that, whether through maturity, appreciation of other things, or over-exposure, but nature is still there in us all.

Personally, I've never photographed a nude. I don't know any...

[ZoeWiseman]

As part of the animal kingdom, I think a universal base reaction to it is bred into us all. Perhaps some us us get past that, whether through maturity, appreciation of other things, or over-exposure, but nature is still there in us all.

Personally, I've never photographed a nude. I don't know any...

If you have never photographed a nude - how in the world can you possibly have an opinion? Unless you have actually engaged in a photo shoot with an art model, please refrain from making assumptions.

There are a lot of photographers out there (models call them GWCs, guys with cameras) who are not interested in art at all, but only interested in getting a model naked before his lens. Either he has bad luck sexually with women and can't seem to get the clothes off any other way, or he hasn't yet reached an artistic break through. (I'm blunt - so pardon me, I don't pave the road with platitudes and just say it like it is) Those who have reached their artistic break through or have had the epiphany - understand that nudity is the best way to enhance the meaning of their photograph. Clothes date an image. For someone who wants the meaning of their photograph to transverse time for human beings, sometimes nudity is the only way. And no - the meaning in this circumstance certainly is not sexual, universal possibly. Do you think that Michelangelo was whacking off in the Sistine Chapel when he was painting all those naked men and women on the walls? :rolleyes: No, he wanted his work to be timeless!

[Frank Petronio]

Yes but Michelangelo was a homosexual and is it any surprise that his painting and sculptures of the male form are better than those of the female form?

Or... in the case of these photographic artists who have been luckily enough to graduate from being a GWC and have "reached their artistic break through or have had the epiphany" -- tell me why the (vast majority, 90% plus) of straight males slavishly photograph naked females? And gay men photograph naked men? And so on... if the naked body is so beautiful shouldn't the gender of the model be meaningless?

While I am sure that there are a few artists who see the beauty in gender neutral, non-sexualized nudity, I think there are very few popular, critical, or financially successful artists working with that criteria. Instead the most successful artists, in my opinion, have harnessed their sexual frustrations, desires, and energy in making greater art. Robert Maplethorpe, Helmut Newton, Cindy Sherman, Nan Goldin, jeez the list goes on and on....

And yes, I see sexual tension and lust in some of Jock Sturges photos, and I bet he does too.

Had you ever been fortunate enough to been photographed by Helmut Newton, having seen the documentary and read his bio, there was very little in his interaction with his models that is different that the so-called creepy GWC working in his suburban basement -- except Helmut's pictures were brilliant and funny.

[ZoeWiseman]

Yes but Michelangelo was a homosexual and is it any surprise that his painting and sculptures of the male form are better than those of the female form?

Or... in the case of these photographic artists who have been luckily enough to graduate from being a GWC and have "reached their artistic break through or have had the epiphany" -- tell me why the (vast majority, 90% plus) of straight males slavishly photograph naked females? And gay men photograph naked men? And so on... if the naked body is so beautiful shouldn't the gender of the model be meaningless?

While I am sure that there are a few artists who see the beauty in gender neutral, non-sexualized nudity, I think there are very few popular, critical, or financially successful artists working with that criteria. Instead the most successful artists, in my opinion, have harnessed their sexual frustrations, desires, and energy in making greater art. Robert Maplethorpe, Helmut Newton, Cindy Sherman, Nan Goldin, jeez the list goes on and on....

And yes, I see sexual tension and lust in some of Jock Sturges photos, and I bet he does too.

Had you ever been fortunate enough to been photographed by Helmut Newton, having seen the documentary and read his bio, there was very little in his interaction with his models that is different that the so-called creepy GWC working in his suburban basement -- except Helmut's pictures were brilliant and funny.

In Michelangelo's time it was much more accepting for an artist to find a nude male model than a nude female model, unless you went into a brothel and found a prostitute to pose for you. Even much of the first nude photographs were taken were of prostitutes. Even the Greeks paid more attention to the male form than the female form. It was unacceptable for a woman to pose in those days. I don't know anything about Michelangelo's sexuality, and I don't really care. His work is TIMELESS. The point I was making. Maybe his work of male nudes is better because male models were easy to come by, therefore giving him a more instructional guide as to where to make his lines and contours. There are a lot of reasons and conjectures, but none of us can ask him, so it's a moot point.


Maybe in this case you should look at the gender of the photographer. Most women photographers photograph other women. Why is that? I don't know the full reason but I'll do my best to explain. I have a lack of interest in depicting things that mean anything to men. We have had centuries full of a man's meaning and I want to show a woman's. Maybe other women feel the same way and maybe that's why the majority of women photographers make more photographs of other women. I am not a gay man (obviously) and don't want to speak for them, but maybe they wish to express being gay because that is also something that has been silenced through the centuries. Same way with women. Maybe we are sick to death of seeing women depicted with lollipop innuendo and orgasmic expressions because we are so much more than that. There aren't many photographers (male of female) who actually shoot fine art nudes though. There are a lot of photographers who shoot glamour photography or erotic photography and then try to put a fine art stamp of approval on it. It doesn't make it so though.

So, you are saying here that unless something is sexualized that it isn't going to have any meaning to the audience? Really? I find that a bit shallow. I don't have any sexual frustrations, so - maybe that's why I don't sexualize my work. Lucky me - but I'm a Scorpio and we rule the house of sex. Not to say that sexualizing anything is wrong - but the comments in this discussion really put me at odds. Automatically putting someone into a category and then ridiculing that category is RUDE.

Jock - nice guy but I'm not going to comment on his work. I am not comfortable with it, and like I said, he is not the end all be all of fine art nude photography. He is only one person. To base the entire genre upon him is super duper shallow. Bringing him up each and every time a discussion on fine art nude photography comes up shows lack of education on the subject. Let us talk about Anne Brigman instead!

Helmut's intentions were to sexualize nudes although I find a lot of his work androgynous, especially his BIG NUDES for some reason, I know not why.

To throw every photographer who shoots nudes into the sex category isn't "seeing." It's saying, "You must be one horny MFer if you shoot photos of naked people." A bit immature. Reminds me of the rednecks in Indiana I grew up with. Seriously.

Oh and... I enjoyed your website. :)

[Mark Sawyer]

If you have never photographed a nude - how in the world can you possibly have an opinion? Unless you have actually engaged in a photo shoot with an art model, please refrain from making assumptions.

And I've never been a politician, so how could I possibly have any opinions about politics either, hmmm? Please give me credit for a modicum of intelligence...

Beyond Frank's response, I'll venture that Edward Weston is the most respected photographer of the "artistic nude". He also had quite a well-deserved reputation for fooling around with his models. Would you classify him as an artist or a GWC?

Personally, I'd classify him as human.

But perhaps you could note for us a few noteable photographers of adult nudes who's work has no sexual implications?

[Frank Petronio]

Zoe, I like your work and we even know some of the same people online, I don't want to be rude or personal with this discussion either.


So, you are saying here that unless something is sexualized that it isn't going to have any meaning to the audience?

No, that is not what I said.


Lucky me - but I'm a Scorpio and we rule the house of sex.

Me too, big surprise!


Automatically putting someone into a category and then ridiculing that category is RUDE.


I didn't put you into any category and you brought up the classic "GWC". Please go back and read what I wrote. If I was rude it was unintentional and I apologize, but I don't see it either.

Mark and I both asked, in terms of popular, critical, or financial success, to name a photographer who is doing nudes that have no sexual component, at least in how they were made between the artist and subject. (I understand that you can't control the audience's thoughts....)

I'm not saying it is impossible, but I think it is extremely rare. Or that people deny their feelings in the guise of being "professional" (and probably rightly so in most cases). I'm not a female nor am I you, so I can't know your thoughts or emotions, but I can observe what work is getting shown nationally, published, criticized, etc.

As to whether that is a male-dominated conspiracy, I kind of doubt it after looking at the make-up of galleries, juries, art school academics (try going to an SPE conference) or even the pool of up and coming designers and art directors at the large ad agencies. If anything being a male -- a pale one at that -- is neutral and even a hinderance in today's art and professional photographic world.

But... you are a brave soul arguing here. This is, unfortunately, a 99.9% old white male forum. Please don't let me scare you off.

[ZoeWiseman]

And I've never been a politician, so how could I possibly have any opinions about politics either, hmmm? Please give me credit for a modicum of intelligence...

Beyond Frank's response, I'll venture that Edward Weston is the most respected photographer of the "artistic nude". He also had quite a well-deserved reputation for fooling around with his models. Would you classify him as an artist or a GWC?

Personally, I'd classify him as human.

But perhaps you could note for us a few noteable photographers of adult nudes who's work has no sexual implications?

I will venture that Edward Weston is the most overrated photographer of the artistic nude. Imogen Cunningham was WAY better at it than he was. I do like his peppers though, but he kind of stole the idea from Georgia O'Keefe.

Try Anne Brigman, Imogen Cunningham. Andreas Bitesnich (for someone contemporary), he always becomes disheartened when he is surrounded by photographers who are only there "for the flesh" as he puts it. There are also a few up and coming photographers whose work I like who don't work like that - Bryce Lankard, Ted Preuss, Dave Aharonian... just to name a few. I could actually name a lot of photographers, but that might get you started.

As for politicians - when people continually put such a stigma upon those of us who dare make photographs of nude human beings it becomes harder and harder for us to practice our chosen art form. In the past week I have read news items of photography exhibits being censored by police and a photographer and model being arrested for disorderly conduct for shooting out doors in an area away from the public in the middle of nowhere. I think this type of dialog needs to stop and people in the United States need to grow up.

[Peter De Smidt]

I will venture that Edward Weston is the most overrated photographer of the artistic nude.

I agree. Although I love many of his photographs, I find his nudes unappealing. My favorite nude is Wynn Bullock's "Nude at Sandy's Window." But it doesn't bother me in the least if others hate it. Art evaluation is subjective.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I didn't get Weston until I saw the prints. The images just don't come across in a book or on a computer screen.

[W K Longcor]

I've been watching this thread, with much interest. It is very interesting how a simple question -- has anybody seen a particular magazine and is it worth the price? -- and we have gone through the nude as art - the nude as a sexual item -- if photographers who photograph the nude are just dirty old guys with cameras , etc. etc. ----WOW ! I feel sorry for the people who just have church and politics to get in a dither over! Photographers know how to have more FUN !:D

[Doug Howk]

John Wood, in Photographic Arts, said

But sex can never be divorced from art, for art has only three subjects: sex,death, and God, or since the late nineteenth century Nature, which usurped God's position. Everything else is merely a variation on or an entwining of those themes. So why should eroticism in photography be more troublesome than it is in the rest of art or in life itself? We are as troubled by sex as we are by death and by God - their power is too mysterious and so we've made them the subjects of our art but also made them - or aspects of them - into our taboos.
Attempts to deny or go beyond the erotic aspect of the human form tend to spiritualize or intellectualize the act of contemplating the human form. But such attempts are more mind games we humans play in order to feel comfortable in the presence of the human form.

[domenico Foschi]

John Wood, in Photographic Arts, said

Attempts to deny or go beyond the erotic aspect of the human form tend to spiritualize or intellectualize the act of contemplating the human form. But such attempts are more mind games we humans play in order to feel comfortable in the presence of the human form.

Just because you haven't experienced the human body in a spiritual manner, doesn't mean that approach doesn't exist.

Also, what is wrong with the erotic aspect of experiencing the human body?
Is there a need to attach words like "perv"?
The last time I heard that word was from the mouth of a teenager.

Going back to Jock Sturges, what is wrong with seeing the undeniable beauty of his subjects?
Has he been accused of molestation?

Let's remember that childhood sexual abuse, yes, has to do with sex, but mainly is about power, which is something I do not see in his images, quite the contrary.
Contemplating Beauty in its every form is the drive of the Artist and I am always puzzled by the comments I read sometimes coming from people who follow the same path.

[QT Luong]

> Going back to Jock Sturges, what is wrong with seeing the undeniable beauty of his subjects? Has he been accused of molestation?

Personally, I do not see anything wrong just in the images, however I read there is an autobiographical movie called "Art for teachers of children" made by Jennifer Montgomery, one of his former models that has troubling themes. If I remember well, her mother did accuse him.

[Doug Howk]

Just because you haven't experienced the human body in a spiritual manner, doesn't mean that approach doesn't exist.
I new I was going to miss something when I gave up on religion ;-) I would guess that those who view the human form in a spiritual manner see its beauty as evidence of a creator, which is fine. And those who pursue "Truth" also find beauty in that form. As a non-believer, I'm left with merely appreciating the beauty of the human form, whether erotic or otherwise.

[domenico Foschi]

> Going back to Jock Sturges, what is wrong with seeing the undeniable beauty of his subjects? Has he been accused of molestation?

Personally, I do not see anything wrong just in the images, however I read there is an autobiographical movie called "Art for teachers of children" made by Jennifer Montgomery, one of his former models that has troubling themes. If I remember well, her mother did accuse him.

YEs, It does look there have been some problems.
I wasn't aware of it.
I am planning to get the movie and get a little more informed on Sturges' "modus operandi".

[Robert Brummitt]

Gee-wiz! I wanted thoughts about a magazine and get the Spanish Inquision instead!
This thread has taken a whole different direction. But, that's OK. I'm interested what you all have to share.
I like what was said about Imogen Cunningham's work. I too love hers and think she may have a peg over Edward Weston. I also had heard that EW though so as well. I have to go thru my books to find that quote.
I never thought much of Jock's work. I remember how the FBI came to my lab to discuss with us about Adult themed photography that contained Children. Never saw any.
To add to a list of names. What do you all think of Marcus Allen work? He was a PB photographer about the same time as Mr. Dunas. I thought his Yosemite images interesting.

[Robert Brummitt]

Sorry I met Ken Marcus. My memory sometimes fails me.

[Duane Polcou]

IMHO, Ken Marcus was one of the best practitioners of the "glamour nude" or "centerfold nude" during the era of photographers creating their own signature in-camera diffusion by creating "recipes" of panty hose types fit into circular filter rings. I collect so many of those old magazines as their dated natural light look is almost classic, at least to me.

I had a conversation with him at one of the very first Photo East (now PDN Photo Plus) conventions in NYC. If memory serves he just left Penthouse as he felt Bob Guccione's editorial shift from showing pubic hair to actual genitilia to actual sexual interaction for the sake of competing with Hustler, et al, was not a direction he wanted his photogaphy to parallel.

He then produced a body of work in Yosemite National Park of B/W nudes posed against backdrops of iconic Yosemite features, as well as isolated views utilizing cliffs and rocks. I thought they were stunning; they reminded me of some of the images Lucien Clergue used to produce in quarries, but with much more muscular and curvaceous physiques. Playing the shapes of the human form off of the shapes in the environment. But the Park Service, if I am correct, cancelled a planned show of these prints as they felt uncomfortable with nudity.

The last time I visited his site (admittedly about a year ago) it was a pay-to-join affair pretty heavily into bondage pictures of porn stars, although his image of Jenna Jameson hanging suspended in the air is amazing. I never understood the appeal of images of tying up women, so I found the pictures a little rough for my tastes, but they were exquisitely produced, as he is one of the true old school masters of composition and lighting for nude photography.

[Michael Graves]

...as though they have a loftier agenda other than taking nudie shots...

There's a loftier agenda than that?

[Mark Sawyer]

I will venture that Edward Weston is the most overrated photographer of the artistic nude. Imogen Cunningham was WAY better at it than he was. I do like his peppers though, but he kind of stole the idea from Georgia O'Keefe.

Try Anne Brigman, Imogen Cunningham. Andreas Bitesnich (for someone contemporary), he always becomes disheartened when he is surrounded by photographers who are only there "for the flesh" as he puts it. There are also a few up and coming photographers whose work I like who don't work like that - Bryce Lankard, Ted Preuss, Dave Aharonian... just to name a few. I could actually name a lot of photographers, but that might get you started.

As for politicians - when people continually put such a stigma upon those of us who dare make photographs of nude human beings it becomes harder and harder for us to practice our chosen art form. In the past week I have read news items of photography exhibits being censored by police and a photographer and model being arrested for disorderly conduct for shooting out doors in an area away from the public in the middle of nowhere. I think this type of dialog needs to stop and people in the United States need to grow up.

Anne Brigman and Imogene Cunningham were both a bit "scandalous" in their day, though Imogene's photographs of interracial couples were even more controversial. But perhaps there's hope for the human race if we've grown past that... Bitesnich's work is often rather erotic, and obviously so; I'm surprised you chose him for an example.

I don't argue that all photographs/paintings/drawings of nudes are pornographic, or even meant to have any sexual/erotic content. But I recognize that they will be seen that way. Photography more than any other visual art form (except video), due to its direct connection to reality. That you've encountered a continual stigma that makes it harder to do your work indicates that this is a prevailing perception.
It's not that big a deal; there's been no complaint I'm aware of about nudes posted here, and such photography can certainly have all the wonderful qualities of other subject matter. But one shouldn't decide that they'll pursue such work and never raise an eyebrow...

I'm not arguing that's how it should be, I'm arguing that's how it is.

[Robert Brummitt]

"The last time I visited his site (admittedly about a year ago) it was a pay-to-join affair pretty heavily into bondage pictures of porn stars, although his image of Jenna Jameson hanging suspended in the air is amazing. I never understood the appeal of images of tying up women, so I found the pictures a little rough for my tastes, but they were exquisitely produced, as he is one of the true old school masters of composition and lighting for nude photography.[/QUOTE]

WHoa! I just visited Marcus' website and he sure has gone to the dark side. I guess it pays the bills but I liked his older work better. I remember looking forward to see his name in the Playbill of PB.
I noticed that his website declares he was Ansel's youngest assistant. I wonder if that's true?

[Gustavo]

I think the magazine is run by D.J Jim Ladd's girlfriend meet them at freestyle 3 Weston's show as I understand it they like Kim's work , I asked her about the magazine submissions and I was told they do take them but only B&W alt processes need not apply
for whatever is worth

[Ben Syverson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze#Gaze_and_feminist_theory

This is an old, old issue in art. In fact, it's so old that the art world has yawned and moved on.

In the contemporary art scene, "fine art nudes" are about as fashionable as landscapes—which is to say, they are not fashionable at all. But most FAN (and landscape) photographers do not pretend or aspire to be a part of the contemporary art world (that is, leading galleries and museums).

When pressed, the real reason FAN and landscape photographers do what they do is one of two things: either because they're able to sell a lot of prints (a small group), or because they just find the photographic activity pleasurable (a large group).

In this way, I wish more FAN photographers would admit to themselves (and to us) that they photograph nudes because it's fun, not because they take themselves so dreadfully seriously as Artists.

You notice that the FAN photographer will rarely have an artist's statement on his (or, very rarely, her) site... And when you do come across one, it has to do with "the body as landscape." I'll PayPal $10 to the first FAN photographer who posts this as his artist's statement on his website:

"I photograph nudes because it is pleasurable."

[domenico Foschi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze#Gaze_and_feminist_theory

This is an old, old issue in art. In fact, it's so old that the art world has yawned and moved on.

In the contemporary art scene, "fine art nudes" are about as fashionable as landscapes—which is to say, they are not fashionable at all. But most FAN (and landscape) photographers do not pretend or aspire to be a part of the contemporary art world (that is, leading galleries and museums).

When pressed, the real reason FAN and landscape photographers do what they do is one of two things: either because they're able to sell a lot of prints (a small group), or because they just find the photographic activity pleasurable (a large group).

In this way, I wish more FAN photographers would admit to themselves (and to us) that they photograph nudes because it's fun, not because they take themselves so dreadfully seriously as Artists.

You notice that the FAN photographer will rarely have an artist's statement on his (or, very rarely, her) site... And when you do come across one, it has to do with "the body as landscape." I'll PayPal $10 to the first FAN photographer who posts this as his artist's statement on his website:

"I photograph nudes because it is pleasurable."



I photograph nudes because is pleasurable.

I photograph urban landscapes because is pleasurable.

I photograph portraits because is pleasurable.

I photograph still life because is pleasurable.

I photograph "landscapes" because is pleasurable.

I photograph walls because is pleasurable.

I photograph street scenes because is pleasurable.


No, I will not put that in my statement because that is not the all truth.
I will say that again, if you don't share the same point of view of other photographers who say that photographing nudes has a spiritual and artistic meaning it doesn't necessarily mean that you are telling the truth and everybody else is lying, right?

That is your view of the Nude in Art and I will never argue with that, but when you start putting words in other artists mouths then I do have a problem, because I have shot nudes and it has been and still is a wonderful experience.

I read yours and other people's posts and I can see now why photographers have gained a bad rep.

[Ben Syverson]

I make no claim on Truth (that would be laughable)... My opinion may be provocative, but that was the point.

In the end, you write "I have shot nudes and it has been and still is a wonderful experience." What in my words contradicts this? On the contrary, I support it completely. Photograph whatever you please, but if it's pleasure you're after, make sure that this is central in the explanation or defense of your work.

If, on the other hand, you say your nude/landscape has a particular spiritual or artistic "meaning," then by all means, tell it, because otherwise I may miss it; it may be too subtle for my coarse sensibilities. When Ansel Adams photographed Yosemite, it was extremely political—polemical, even. The message of environmentalism and conservation could not have been more blunt.

But these days, Yosemite is a protected and recognized treasure. So a photograph of Half Dome will not trigger the same reaction. When I'm confronted with it, it leaves me cold. If the photographer insists it's art, it falls to him to contextualize his work. If he says he "just thinks it's beautiful," then you know he is a fool; art is the articulation of an idea, but pretty pictures are just impotent decoration.

The same goes for nudes. And when the foolish photographer counters by comparing his work to the Old Masters (who supposedly just made beautiful objects, no more, no less), he exposes himself to be twice as foolish, because all of the Old Masters' pieces are full of ideas, conflict and philosophy that were contemporary to their time. So no, a heterosexual man photographing a naked woman in 2008 will not have the same weight as Michaelangelo's lyrical nude sculptures, which articulated the agonizing conflict between Greek Ideals and his homosexual desires.

Anyway, my point was not to start some flame war, so I believe I've said more than enough already. The provocation is done. If I've made one photographer actually think for a moment about what his work really says, then perhaps the benefit outweighs my rudeness.

[Michael_4514]

Bensy, that was very well put and I'm cautious to add anything to what you've said, because I don't want to detract from your point.

I'm always wary when someone says "you don't see the point of my work because you're not an artist." Well, it's the job of the artist to make his or her point to us non-artists, and if the point is not being made, who's fault is that?

To those who say "I photograph the human form because of its great beauty," I ask -- what makes it beautiful? More accurately, why do we find it beautiful? I don't know how to remove sexuality from the human form, and it's pointless to argue that our appreciation of the human form, whether we be artists or the uncultured masses, has nothing to do with its sexuality. Saying that "my pictures of nudes have nothing to do with sexuality" is like saying "my pictures of waterfalls have nothing to do with water."

Sexuality, of course, is not pornography. One need not be an artist to appreciate that fact, just an adult.

[ZoeWiseman]

blither!

water can mean all sorts of things to different people - someone who is in control of their chosen art form can turn a waterfall into something that means nothing about water falling!

[Ben Syverson]

Then I suppose in your terms, my problem with some photographers is their lack of control?

[Brian K]

If the photographer insists it's art, it falls to him to contextualize his work. If he says he "just thinks it's beautiful," then you know he is a fool; art is the articulation of an idea, but pretty pictures are just impotent decoration.

The same goes for nudes. And when the foolish photographer counters by comparing his work to the Old Masters (who supposedly just made beautiful objects, no more, no less), he exposes himself to be twice as foolish, because all of the Old Masters' pieces are full of ideas, conflict and philosophy that were contemporary to their time. So no, a heterosexual man photographing a naked woman in 2008 will not have the same weight as Michaelangelo's lyrical nude sculptures, which articulated the agonizing conflict between Greek Ideals and his homosexual desires.


I have to disagree with you about the "just thinks it's beautiful" comment. There are many people out there who create work of truly lyrical beauty, in which others see meaning, but who can not articulate what they feel that makes them find beauty and meaning in their work. The work itself can be very expressive even if the artist lacks the verbal ability to articulate it. On the other hand I have come across work that to me lacks any feeling or expression but comes with an essay long explanation of why this work is significant. Is it the "art speak" alone that makes it art? Isn't content what really matters?

As for art "being full of ideas", everything is full of ideas. There's a lot of bad art full of ideas. If it's made by a person it inherently has an idea behind it. If you have a bowel movement isn't the idea to get rid of your waste? We are conscious, deliberate, thinking creatures, every single thing we do is idea driven to some extent. The hard part is making beauty. Some people really need to try it sometime. I spend 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year trying to make beauty and maybe I'm just not a good photographer because for all that effort I only get about a dozen images a year that meet my beauty criteria. Maybe because creating beauty is so hard and we live in such an immediate gratification world, that it has become far more common to produce art that requires such little effort in creation, but can be readily verbally justified. And who are those who say what art has merit or significance. Not the artists. It's the people who can't actually make art that determine what the greater society considers art.

For my own work I attempt to show beauty. Period. It's far easier to show the ugliness of the world and then impart all these significant social significances to them. All you have to do is come across some mess and shoot it. No need to find a special moment, no need to find a composition or a quality of light that expresses a mood, no need to really interact with the subject. Just find a mess, point a camera at it and tell everyone that your work is socially important. I have seen this far too often with portraits of those who suffer from some disease or bad circumstance, yet the portraits of them lack any real connection to them and are mere soulless captures of the outside shell of the person, but it does give the artist the illusion of truly caring for their subject because, hey, they did show up with a camera. I have seen this far too often with landscape. Another picture of a strip mall or a garbage dump. All this does is desensitize us and make these situations appear the norm. If you really want people to see what we're losing, connect to the person being photographed show their beauty (not necessarily the physical beauty) , or show how beautiful the world was, because we're losing that beauty faster than you think.

I can understand the argument that nudity takes away the period dating that clothes impart, but I've seen my share of nudes and in most cases if it were not the fact that the person was nude and had the accompanying baggage of nudity (shock, sexuality, voyeurism, controversy), it would not be given more than a passing glance.

As for Michelangelo and the old masters, almost all of their work were commercial assignments. The Sistine Chapel was a job. What is the difference between it and someone painting a wall mural for an italian restaurant? Granted it is a mural of the finest quality, was commissioned by a world leader (Pope) and resides in a super prominent location, but it was an assignment for Michelangelo. He didn't wake up one day and paint that on his own ceiling. He was hired to do it. And he chose to make it beautiful.

[QT Luong]

When Ansel Adams photographed Yosemite, it was extremely political—polemical, even. The message of environmentalism and conservation could not have been more blunt.

But these days, Yosemite is a protected and recognized treasure. So a photograph of Half Dome will not trigger the same reaction. When I'm confronted with it, it leaves me cold. If the photographer insists it's art, it falls to him to contextualize his work.


I am not sure I understand this argument. Yosemite has been a national park since 1890. Also, are you saying that if I photograph a place that is threatened, this makes it art, because conservation is a powerful idea, but if I photograph that same place once it's well protected, it is no longer art (although there is still the idea of conservation at work) ?

[QT Luong]

For my own work I attempt to show beauty. Period. It's far easier to show the ugliness of the world and then impart all these significant social significances to them. All you have to do is come across some mess and shoot it. No need to find a special moment, no need to find a composition or a quality of light that expresses a mood, no need to really interact with the subject. Just find a mess, point a camera at it and tell everyone that your work is socially important.

Yes, it is easy to show ugliness, but weren't the artists who rose to the apt at finding beauty in those messy (Ed Burtinsky, Chris Jordan) places or ordinary (Shore and the new topographics) places ?

[Brian K]

Yes, it is easy to show ugliness, but weren't the artists who rose to the apt at finding beauty in those messy (Ed Burtinsky, Chris Jordan) places or ordinary (Shore and the new topographics) places ?

Qt, I enjoy both of their works, the key is that they find beauty. Beauty can be found anywhere if you have the talent to find and capture it. However for many it seems that the only way to succeed in the arts is to merely capture the messes or the mundane while not having the ability to transform it into something more and then to rely on rationalization and art speak to justify work that lacks beauty, true meaning or heart.

[QT Luong]

Sorry, I think I mangled my post after editing it. What I meant was that while there are many who try to make artistic statements by merely capturing the messes or the mundane, those who rose to the top have generally been successful in creating beautiful images, and it might be that this ability is what made the difference.

[Mark Sawyer]

Sorry, I think I mangled my post after editing it. What I meant was that while there are many who try to make artistic statements by merely capturing the messes or the mundane, those who rose to the top have generally been successful in creating beautiful images, and it might be that this ability is what made the difference.

Odd, isn't it, how W. Gene Smith could make a beautiful image that would suck you into the suffering or tragedy of a situation... (thinking of his work at Minamata...)

[Brian K]

Odd, isn't it, how W. Gene Smith could make a beautiful image that would suck you into the suffering or tragedy of a situation... (thinking of his work at Minamata...)

Mark there are very few who can do that today. Partly because WG Smith would live with his subjects, as in the case of Minamata he moved to that town. It's that exposure to the people that earned him their trust and allowed him to be part of the intimate aspects of their lives. Today it seems that photographers rarely do this and their work lacks that intimacy and depth.

[Mystery Jig]

Mark there are very few who can do that today. Partly because WG Smith would live with his subjects, as in the case of Minamata he moved to that town. It's that exposure to the people that earned him their trust and allowed him to be part of the intimate aspects of their lives. Today it seems that photographers rarely do this and their work lacks that intimacy and depth.

You're right, I think, in explaining why Smith's work has power, but wrong about other photographers today. There are plenty doing great, in-depth work but there are no American papers or magazines publishing anything challenging anymore. They'd rather publish pictures of celebrities.

[Bill_1856]

I wouild not classify the images as soft porn, or any other kind of porn. The issues I have seeb have contained very well lit and photographed female bodies but they are certainly not erotic, or sexually stimulating, or porn of any kind.

Sounds like it would hardly be worth checking it out.:p

[domenico Foschi]

Mark there are very few who can do that today. Partly because WG Smith would live with his subjects, as in the case of Minamata he moved to that town. It's that exposure to the people that earned him their trust and allowed him to be part of the intimate aspects of their lives. Today it seems that photographers rarely do this and their work lacks that intimacy and depth.

Drinking ferricyanide helps too....

[Mark Sawyer]

Sorry if I wandered off-topic by thinking of how a beautiful image can be used, but Smith's work popped into my mind as a poignant counterpoint to the "Carrie Leigh's Nudes" approach of "aren't beautiful women beautiful/aren't sexy women sexy" approach.

And no, I wouldn't put all nudes into that category...

[Barry Trabitz]

IMHO, Weston's nudes are landscapes and not erotic at all. On the other hand the peppers and shells are among the most erotic works of art I can recall.

Barry Trabitz.

[domenico Foschi]

Weston was famous for cheating on his women with veggies.
In a moment of vulnerability he confessed that for him there was nothing more sensual than a cabbage.
Jokes aside, I agree with you in part.
The intrinsic value of still life and nudes in Weston's work was interchangeable and I see a strong spiritual component in the tackling of both subject matters.

[SamReeves]

^ LMAO!!!! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing002.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

At least Weston didn't experiment with cigars.

Good Lord, all nekkids are somewhat sexual. So Weston was a little bit of a perv when he wasn't popping negatives on the rocks at Point Lobos. :D