Attitudes to nudity and photography as well as other art forms

[RalphLambrecht]

I rather be critized as a pornographer,as Helmut Newton did than being told that my images are 'nice or 'cute', which would really hurt my pride.That's why I don't do kids or puppiesand no floers either.Getting strong objections is better than no emotion at all.At least, thatway, I know I got some impact.Nice pictures don't move anybody anymore.magazines are full of them.Buy National Geographic if you like nice and cute;they do it well.

 

[resummerfield]

.....Anyway, what I totally disagree with is removing (=censoring) a photo, against the photographer's will, because someone "got offended".
Getting offended is a personal matter than one should resolve himself, facing his inner demons and insecurities.
Getting offended is a ridiculous reason to censor others.
I can't force the Muslim girl walking next to me to take off her burqa because I "get offended".
I can't stop the Christian lady in the tube murmuring a chant because I'm an atheist and "get offended".
I can't force the gay couple next door from kissing in front of me, because I'm heterosexual and "get offended".
Why should I be able to force someone to remove their artwork because I "get offended"?

"Getting offended" is a buzzword to enable people to essentially censor what they don't like and limit the freedoms of others.

Well said.

 

[gandolfi]

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.

Portraiture is a much better art form, simply because a person's face is so much more expressive than their behind.

.

Don't understand that at all... If nudes aren't nessecary in Photography, then faces are not either - or landscapes - or houses or.... Nothing is nessecary - they are all options..

A painter or sculpter doesn't "have to learn the human form" - except if they want to do nudes (?)

Portraiture is not better - just different... (And I know of people whos' behind is more expressive than their faces.. )

Nudes is a choise - a challenge - a daunting one, as there's SO much crap out there and because it has been done a few times over the years....

 

[tkamiya]

Well said.

Except that online, we take it to extreme and turn it into a personal attack. In almost every case, the discussion starts when someone finds an image objectionable. Then the attack turns into photographers' view, skill, or taste as an artist. In some cases, the attack goes toward the subject. Objections on the images turns into haterate for the photographer and the subject. At that point, the discussion or the objection is no longer about the image itself. Being online, the discussion doesn't stop there and degrades to name calling until moderator steps in and clean up the thread, then close it.

In everyday life, when faced with unplesantly, one's tendency is to ignore it and walk-by. On online forums, tendency is to comment. Then comment on comment on the comment. Then comment on that. Now the comment is about the comment, not the subject.


If we can stick with the issue at hand or discussion of the image, then I think it's great. In practice, not so much.

 

[Alan Klein]

I agree with you, harsh and unobstructed criticism is of paramount importance.
Even if it's just an opinion (what the hell, of course it's gonna be an opinion, most things we say are opinions).
Even if the artist gets offended because his ego can't handle it (which is very, very often the case).

In the end, harsh criticism helps everyone in the long run.

Unfortunately such criticism is rare in fora like here, where people are eponymous and interact with each other daily, and the social norms of friendly behaviour take over honest critique.
But it is what it is.

Anyway, what I totally disagree with is removing (=censoring) a photo, against the photographer's will, because someone "got offended".
Getting offended is a personal matter than one should resolve himself, facing his inner demons and insecurities.
Getting offended is a ridiculous reason to censor others.
I can't force the Muslim girl walking next to me to take off her burqa because I "get offended".
I can't stop the Christian lady in the tube murmuring a chant because I'm an atheist and "get offended".
I can't force the gay couple next door from kissing in front of me, because I'm heterosexual and "get offended".
Why should I be able to force someone to remove their artwork because I "get offended"?

"Getting offended" is a buzzword to enable people to essentially censor what they don't like and limit the freedoms of others.

This is a two way street. 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? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you’re offended by their rights, then you don’t have to be here and can start your own site.

Also, on a friendly note, this is supposed to be a forum where we should respect one another. We should limit our verbiage, photos, etc. so not to offend one another, just out of respect for each other. If you were visiting your friend’s parent’s home, wouldn’t you stop the usual cursing you might do if they weren’t there? It’s the same thing.

As a suggestion to the owners of this site, maybe they can create a warning and then require an extra step to see nude photos, like Google and Photo.net. Then we can discuss issues and see photos that can be blocked from children and other who wish not to see them.

 

[Wayne]

Yes, it was done artfully and quite so. You had to see the image to see how and why.... Nudity itself is nudity just as landscape itself is landscape. As far as I'm concerned, it's what an artist do with it that makes it an art. (and let's not start "what's an art" discussion!) It was an magnificent work and I don't even like nudes.

I was going to add that I could see it being done artfully by a rare artist. But such artists are so rare I didn't bother to add that qualification. Of course the image that comes to mind having not seen the image in question is a rather banal image done by one of many millions of men posting banal nude images of women.

 

[eddie]

Don't understand that at all... If nudes aren't nessecary in Photography, then faces are not either - or landscapes - or houses or.... Nothing is nessecary - they are all options..

Nudes is a choise - a challenge - a daunting one, as there's SO much crap out there and because it has been done a few times over the years....

Well put, Emil. Another reason I shoot nudes (and other subjects) is because each genre I do helps expand the way I see, when shooting something else. While it may be subliminal, the nudes I've done have made me more prone to see the sensual shapes in a landscape, and the landscapes I've shot have helped me see the "geography" of the human form. It's all connected....

 

[removed account4]

Well put, Emil. Another reason I shoot nudes (and other subjects) is because each genre I do helps expand the way I see, when shooting something else. While it may be subliminal, the nudes I've done have made me more prone to see the sensual shapes in a landscape, and the landscapes I've shot have helped me see the "geography" of the human form. It's all connected....

couldn't agree more eddie
everything is interconnected ...
(but most fail to see the connections)

 

[Ian Grant]

You have to do nude studies to learn the human form.

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.

Using that arguement there's no reason it can't be just as valid for a photographer yo use the naked body to study human form. It's only your personal judgement that says it isn't.

There are many poor nude shots around it isn't easy making good images.

Ian

 

[eddie]

John- I don't always see the connection while composing. Sometimes it isn't until I look at a dried print that I see the connections. It doesn't matter, though. Every area of photography I explore helps with every other area.
Another thing, which hasn't been mentioned, is the fact that, having shot nudes, I can appreciate the nudes shot by other photographers better. I'm aware of the difficulties inherent in the genre, and am more appreciative of a successful image. It's easy to call them unnecessary, banal, prurient, etc. when you haven't done them. It's like saying you don't like Brussels sprouts without having tasted them.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I missed that previous thread, but nudes are a big part of photography and no one should feel ashamed to photograph it, pose for it, or discuss it. We are a mature lot that shouldn't censor these debates just because a little nudity offends someone. This is art, and I remember a saying that in some aspects, if it's not offending someone, your doing it wrong!

 

[Jaf-Photo]

A painter or sculpter doesn't "have to learn the human form" - except if they want to do nudes (?)

Painters and sculpters need a very good knowledge of anatomy even to do artwork of people with their clothes on. The proportions of the body always have to be spot on or it will look all wrong.

Photographers get that fror free.

 

[Wayne]

John- I don't always see the connection while composing. Sometimes it isn't until I look at a dried print that I see the connections. It doesn't matter, though. Every area of photography I explore helps with every other area.
Another thing, which hasn't been mentioned, is the fact that, having shot nudes, I can appreciate the nudes shot by other photographers better. I'm aware of the difficulties inherent in the genre, and am more appreciative of a successful image. It's easy to call them unnecessary, banal, prurient, etc. when you haven't done them. It's like saying you don't like Brussels sprouts without having tasted them.

I don't shoot nudes and I think it would be hard to have a better appreciation for how difficult it is to shoot good nudes than I possess. The photographic evidence is everywhere. I don't think you have to shoot nudes to appreciate that, and in fact it seems the opposite is often true-many of those shooting it aren't very good editors of their own work. The fact that I think much of it is banal should not be construed as meaning I think its easy or that I could shoot it better. I can probably edit better though.

 

[Ian Grant]

Wayne, I think your comment "many of those shooting it aren't very good editors of their own work. The fact that I think much of it is banal should not be construed as meaning I think its easy or that I could shoot it better. I can probably edit better though" is true for all genres of photography.

John Nanian said much the same in the deleted thread.

Ian

 

[jovo]

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.

 

[eddie]

I don't shoot nudes and I think it would be hard to have a better appreciation for how difficult it is to shoot good nudes than I possess.

While you may be perfectly able to judge the photo's success ( or failure), I think anyone that shoots them has a better appreciation of what it entails. You haven't done it, so you have no experience dealing with someone who is offering themselves up, in the most vulnerable way, trusting someone to make a photo. I think portraits are a similar situation, but the nude more so.

 

[gandolfi]

Painters and sculpters need a very good knowledge of anatomy even to do artwork of people with their clothes on. The proportions of the body always have to be spot on or it will look all wrong.

Photographers get that fror free.

so here you answered your own claim : IF they are going into artwork of people with their clothes on...

But what if they are going into non figurative sculptures?

And I don't buy that we photographers get it for free... I have become a much better photographer with people with their clothes on, because of my nudes..

 

[Truzi]

I had followed that thread since it started. Yesterday everything seemed fine, I went to mow the lawn, came back and saw deleted posts & the thread closed. Looking at the deleted posters, I instantly knew what happened, as has happened many times before (and has been confirmed above).

As for nudity, I've always felt we are a bit repressed in the U.S. Regardless of photographic intent, what is so awful about our bodies that we are offended by them? That is not to say I don't sometimes feel a photo may be gratuitous, but still, it's just a naked person - no big deal.

I am honestly more offended by habitually poor spelling and grammar from native English speakers; I have no problem if English is a person's second language, but do expect someone raised with it to know how to use it.

 

[gandolfi]

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 whole hartedly agree!
In the closed thread the word honesty was used.. And I think that's the key.

 

[removed account4]

honesty is good
but we live in a world where
honesty is not common practice.

the poster in the other thread also suggested non-honest (portraits) were BS ...

when BS is the norm, honesty becomes BS

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's in the eye of the beholder. But folks have to define what is art, pornography and erotica. But for the some, any nudity equates porn. I think prudish societies have more issues with sexuality and body image. To be fair, there should be a warning for those that think differently just as those have problem with nudity should not censor those that want to that want to show nude art. Live and let live.

 

[Dinesh]

... Looking at the deleted posters, I instantly knew what happened, as has happened many times before (and has been confirmed above).

I too was puzzled until I saw the deleted posts.

A real shame as I found it to be a fascinating thread.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

I'm sorry but I don't see any falseness. Perhaps the photographer's intent is to contrast the softness and vulnerability of the human body with the hardness and permanence of the rock.

 

[cliveh]

I suppose it is up to individual perception, but when does artistic nude photography move into pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?

 

[MattKing]

I suppose it is up to individual perception, but when does artistic nude photography move into pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?

To answer this question, you must:

1) decide what your definition is of each different component of "pornography, soft porn, hard porn, paedophilia, etc?"; and then
2) determine whether your "artistic nude photography" fits one or more of those definitions.

The problem, of course, begins with the definitions. They tend to vary a bit.