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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_ga...eminist_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."
Originally Posted by bensyverson
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.
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.
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.
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!
Then I suppose in your terms, my problem with some photographers is their lack of control?
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.
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) ?
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 ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks