New Figure magazine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoeWiseman

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Me too, big surprise!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoeWiseman

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.

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.

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

John Wood, in Photographic Arts, said

Quote:

---

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.