Should Nude Sections Remain Unenforced

[Jody_S]

I would wager there is not a single reader of this forum who is too young, by anyone's judgement, to view the artistic, non-explicit nudes that are allowed on this forum. I understand many people view the forum from work though, and accidentally viewing a nipple or two in a section of the forum that isn't labelled as 'nude' or 'NSFW' could possibly cause a problem for someone, somewhere, but even that seems unlikely given the age brackets here and the financial resources needed to pursue LF photography. I would understand if the recent portrait was moved to the 'nude' section, if someone complained?

[Corran]

IMO, it should be common courtesy to post any nude images in appropriately-marked threads. The monthly portrait thread is not one of them.

Many users browse this site in public, be it on their phone/laptop, a public computer, or a work computer (during breaks, of course). Lets leave aside any kind of debate on social norms regarding nudity, and recognize differences in cultures and opinions.

[Corran]

but even that seems unlikely given the age brackets here and the financial resources needed to pursue LF photography.

So what you are saying is that LF photography is the domain of rich old retirees?

PS: I talked to a young woman this weekend, just graduated from college (so age 22 or 23 I guess) and got her feet wet w/ LF photography (4x5 and 8x10). She was looking for a cheap camera to pursue it on her own.

[Vaughn]

...Lets leave aside any kind of debate on social norms regarding nudity, and recognize differences in cultures and opinions.

And let's leave aside any thinly disguised (and sometimes not) wolf-whistles.

[Christopher Barrett]

I believe that it's easily argued that the nude form, expressly the female nude, hasn't been a legitimate artistic exploration since Steichen. The subject is highly problematized and not all separable from the objectification of the subject. One could counter with, what about Mapplethorpe, Sally Mann, and Jock Sturges? Sure, I do love their work, yet it is still controversial and many would say exploitive. I think that possible exploitation might make the work more interesting than it actually would be otherwise.

I came away from art school with the notion drummed into my head that honestly, nobody should be shooting nudes anymore.

[Winger]

I would wager there is not a single reader of this forum who is too young, by anyone's judgement, to view the artistic, non-explicit nudes that are allowed on this forum.

But that does not apply to all the children of those who are members. My son is 9 and my computer screen is visible from across the room.

And let's leave aside any thinly disguised (and sometimes not) wolf-whistles.

Hear, hear.

[faberryman]

But that does not apply to all the children of those who are members. My son is 9 and my computer screen is visible from across the room.

Then don't view the thread when he is in the room.

[Vaughn]

Then don't view the thread when he is in the room.

We are talking here about nudes not on the nude thread.

[Oren Grad]

Then don't view the thread when he is in the room.

This works only if people are considerate, and post NSFW material only in threads clearly labeled for that.

EDIT: OK, I see Vaughn made the point already, while I had my edit window open. Thanks.

[rdenney]

I came away from art school with the notion drummed into my head that honestly, nobody should be shooting nudes anymore.

The problem is that creepiness is assumed by women, whether or not the photographer or the viewer is being creepy. Here the distinction between motive and intent becomes important. Actions that typically yield a predictable result imply the intent to produce that result, though we can’t know the motive. But that word “typically” admits a lot of gray area.

I do get a bit tired of how okay it is for women to wolf-whistle men (even boys in their teens), sometimes silently but not always, and then assume that the wolf-whistle is implied by all admiration. But they are applying their motives to other people’s intent, always a dangerous thing.

When I was in art school (actually, architecture, but at that time it was just about the same thing), life drawing was a standard class and it was required for art majors. Why do you suppose that is? When I took it, the sex of the students favored women even more than the models. Creeps didn’t survive the first week—their intentions were made plain by their sketchbooks.

And those who assume that all male admiration of women is creepy—the “male gaze”—are often the first to complain about puritanical America in defending other art that some people find grossly offensive or exploitative. We can all think of those examples.

All that said, we have to live in that world, and the passing eye may be full of lava all abubble. I work for the government. (Tommy Lee Jones as Agent K observed that “we have no sense of humor that we are aware of”.) I could be fired for looking at the NSFW threads even if on my own time (and policy does allow use of the government computer for personal use within strict guidelines—I don’t carry two computers for my frequent travels—and the policy covers my iPhone, too).

So no matter how the argument goes, if I see a nude outside a marked thread, I’m either going to move it or delete it. But that’s a big if as Oren suggests—we just don’t see everything. But we will be responsive to complaints, and we should all understand the issue no matter where we fall in the controversy ourselves.

Rick “everybody is puritanical about something” Denney