Nude

[paulbarden]

Long experience shows that these types of discussions in this type of forum won't go anywhere good. There are many better venues for this type of discussion. If you don't like the pictures here, change the channel. Notions like 'objectification' are highly loaded blunderbusses, often deployed by people trying to justify subjective preferences.

Please note that I did not use the term "objectification" at any point in this discussion: to do so tends to open up a very specific hot button topic that rarely has anything to do with photographing the nude figure. I would also like to point out that I did not say that I didn't like the pictures presented in this thread. That was not my goal at all. I simply wanted to glean whether or not the "nudes" realm was dominated by straight males as much as it seemed to be, and if so, why? But I don't want to pursue this because I suspect Peter is correct about its inevitable direction, so I withdraw my query. Perhaps what I should instead do is act in my own best interest more, and talk less.

[shoshin]

Someone once said that the female body is a piece of art while the male body is more like a car. It's for getting around. Of course this is not a fact, it's a perception shaped by our culture. But as a male photographer who does some nude modeling himself (from time to time) thats also my own experience. It's very difficult to work against all those clichés.
But it's an interesting change of perspective that I can recommend to every photographer.

[Vaughn]

...If all one has to do is to claim that someone is biased in order to dismiss everything that they say, then I'll simply point out that you are highly biased...

Or it can mean that one should read the book (and/or earlier article that it is based on) with the authors' biases in mind and read other sources for a well-rounded viewpoint. The title itself was devised by the publisher and is not wording the authors themselves would have used -- and did not use in the book. But it created buzz and sales amongst the conservatives. One critic pointed out that starting out a book with a little bit of intellectual dishonesty is not promising.

[Chester McCheeserton]

here's a contemporary example of some fine art nude photography

http://www.reenaspaulings.com/HS.htm

Moderator's note: WARNING - the linked page presents explicit content that is *very* Not Safe for Work and would not be allowed on the Forum itself. Out of consideration for fellow Forum members and for Forum guests, if you include such a link you must give a clear warning of what viewers can expect.

[Andrew O'Neill]

here's a contemporary example of some fine art nude photography

http://www.reenaspaulings.com/HS.htm

You should post a warning.

[Chester McCheeserton]

You should post a warning.

Well I guess maybe people will see your comment....

The mods will probably take it down, and maybe I'll regret posting anything in this discussion.

it's certainly not my work, but the "nude" as a genre trope in fine art photography is so fraught, that I wanted to point to an example of an artist actually getting a significant amount of attention in the contemporary art world working in this genre.

What F-stop do you guys think she used?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have no qualms with that, but a warning should be given. What f/stop? Who knows...

[Peter De Smidt]

Please note that I did not use the term "objectification" at any point in this discussion: to do so tends to open up a very specific hot button topic that rarely has anything to do with photographing the nude figure.

I agree, which is why I objected to Vaughn's use of the term.

[Peter De Smidt]

Or it can mean that one should read the book (and/or earlier article that it is based on) with the authors' biases in mind and read other sources for a well-rounded viewpoint.

Good advice.

The title itself was devised by the publisher and is not wording the authors themselves would have used -- and did not use in the book.

Also good to know.

But it created buzz and sales amongst the conservatives. One critic pointed out that starting out a book with a little bit of intellectual dishonesty is not promising.

Well, I don't know about conservatives. I'm not one. I read that book because I saw Professor Haidt's Ted talk on moral values, and he did a very even-handed job there. I then read his book on ancient wisdom, and it was terrific. As a result, I gave his newest book a try. I've found it very worth reading, especially for someone in education. I appreciate all of the references to psychological research, and I plan on doing some more reading in that area. As you point out, the authors didn't even come up with the title, and yet you're using it to dish the book. If you have reason to think that they're wrong about something, and you want to discuss it in public, by all means do so. Give evidence that the authors are mistaken. That could be an interesting discussion, but not here. All I've seen you do in this thread is cast aspersions. Why come here then?

[paulbarden]

*I'll keep my opinions to myself*