Why must nudes be deemed to be necessary. Why do they need to be to be seen as "studies" to be valid. It's still important to understand the human body no matter what the medium, be it paint, stone or film.
I don't see that nudes are necessary in photography.
If you are a painter or a sculpter then you have to do nude studies to learn the human form. But it's not necessary for photographers.
I suppose it is up to individual perception, but when does artistic nude photography move into pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?
Paedophilia is a quite different issue and should be kept out of this particular discussion please, no-one here condones it and it needs to be rooted out like a cancer.
We all have our own percepttions of what's artistic nude, or erotic nudes, and then soft & hard porn, As we don't allow porn here it's rather academic, hard porn is normally actual sex acts, soft porn explicitly sexual imagery but it's borderline BAiley and Newton shoot superb nudes erotic, slightly explicit but not pornographic.
Ian
What bothers me about nudes is that they so often deny sexuality. In our culture, open nudity IS about sex unless one is taking a bath or a shower. So, what is there to be offended by? Seeing a (typically) young naked man or woman draped over a rock, or leaning against a tree is so patently false it's almost laughable. SHOW the arousal...give a REAL reason for posing without clothes instead of the uptight attitude that manufactures a silly excuse to bare it all. Or, just don't bother.
I can think of one quite famous photographer, sometimes mentioned on this site as a great photographer, who I would suggest is in the area of paedophilia and as to the others you mention, where is line drawn?
You misunderstood me.Why are you offended when a privately created web site has its own editorial requirements for posting? Don't the owners of this site have the freedom to decide what they want to do with their site? Or do you want them to give up their rights and freedom and to comply with your viewpoints? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If youre offended by their rights, then you dont have to be here and can start your own site.
I suppose it is up to individual perception, but when does artistic nude photography move into pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?
You should start a new thread about that.
I have quite strong personal views about how Paedophiles have taken the innocence of happy family images of nude children to use for their own gratification, unfortunately the Internet disseminates it.
We live in a sick world fueled mainly from a non European new world culture which is riddled with gun crime, drugs, paedophiles etc.
It's a sad world where the images of my generation taken by our parents of us kids naked are deemed to be unacceptable, my sister and her now adult children think the same.
The controversial cases in recent years have mostly been female photographers shooting naked young children who happen to feature in their documentary work, Sally Mann for instance.
There's not a lot of common sense in this area.
Ian
..
We live in a sick world fueled mainly from a non European new world culture which is riddled with gun crime, drugs, paedophiles etc..
I find it interesting as to how it always seems to be the other person's culture that is at the root of the problem.
What bothers me about nudes is that they so often deny sexuality. In our culture, open nudity IS about sex unless one is taking a bath or a shower.
A while ago I saw a comment on a photograph showing a pair of bare breasts - "not suitable for children". What are they for then?!!
Steve.
If you do not like something, stop looking at it and do something else.
I rather got the impression that this breast feeding in public is more easy today. The same for public nudity. So far for being natural. What drastically changed is the bodies themselves being made unnatural.
We live in a sick world fueled mainly from a non European new world culture which is riddled with gun crime, drugs, paedophiles etc.
...
There's not a lot of common sense in this area.
Ian
.... I can't really separate the nude female human form from sex or eroticism. You can drape her over rocks, sand, tree branches or the hood of a car.
I don't get it. What raw truths are revealed? Note this is an actual question, not any kind of moral hangup crap. Nudity doesn't offend me, nor do I understand why anyone would bother getting so upset about seeing a picture of a naked woman or something. Just don't look at it if you don't like it, or don't approve etc.
Call me immature if anyone wants to, but I guess the problem for me is I can't really separate the nude female human form from sex or eroticism. You can drape her over rocks, sand, tree branches or the hood of a car.
I'd also note I can't be the only one like this. Witness the number of views most nudes posted to the gallery get, in comparison to other pictures, and in relation to the number comments (usually very few). There's no way in every case the >100 people who viewed the photo initially looked at the thumbnail and then clicked on it because they were fascinated by the lighting, or how the shapes of the T&A parts echoed the shapes of the rocks.
Call me immature if anyone wants to, but I guess the problem for me is I can't really separate the nude female human form from sex or eroticism. You can drape her over rocks, sand, tree branches or the hood of a car.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?