Attitudes to nudity and photography as well as other art forms

[Ian Grant]

A recent thread has been closed and many posts deleted, not sure I can understand why

APUG allows the posting on nude image (male or female) in threads, the Galleries and Portfolios. There needs to be some tolerance and respect for peoples posts and images, also their opinions.

Yes there are some who disapprove of nudity in any form - that's their right, but here on APUG we have a freedom to express what we feel as individuals and that also needs respecting.

There needs to be a sense of reality as well, a poster in the closed thread claimed "The reality is that 99.99% of all nudes are shot by men who just want to see a woman naked, preferably a young one" That goes against my experience where women have been shooting male & female nude images for many decades. and serious photography is becoming a female domain with more female graduate photographer than male.

A point some might miss is actually women photographers have less taboos about shooting female or male nudes than men and the images are often far more explicit and erotic.

Ian

 

[Chris Lange]

Anyone that quibbles over this sort of thing should go start a tumblr acct and spend a week looking at the more expertly curated blogs which show b/w nude work, with very few limits on "SFW" content. The pictures are made by an even mix of male and female photographers.

 

[doughowk]

I believe the OP of the thread requested that it be closed. Probably due to the immature nature of several of the postings. You would think that warmed-over double entendres would not occur here. Maybe such threads should be moved to the appropriate "groups"; however the fine art nude group seems to be a lonely place bereft of new postings.

 

[removed account4]

I believe the OP of the thread requested that it be closed. Probably due to the immature nature of several of the postings.

hi doug

it has taken me years to use the ignore list and to ask moderators to lock a thread down
and my ignore list is being used, and i asked the moderators to lock the thread down..
i wont' go into the exact reasons though, i don't really want to be "moderated" ..

john

 

[giannisg2004]

We're a joke.

We can't have a civilized discussion for longer than a bunch of teens.

 

[Wayne]

Guess I missed the scrum.

 

[tkamiya]

This reminds me of an incident 6 months to a year ago. Someone posted in gallery what I thought was a very well done female nude. The "critical parts" were well outside of critical focus, so you can't see "anything." But, the subject matter was female self-pleasuring. Someone started a thread to talk about this gallery posting. Nasty things were said. The work was pulled by the poster siting lack of respect to his work and his model. (the model saw APUG discussions, apparently)

THAT was sad..... this pseudo puritanism... if that's a real word. It can hurt children! Well, children today see far more explicit stuff on television.... but we must pretend, we must ban those things because it damages something..... We all know what's under clothing. We all know what everybody does in their respective homes. Yet, we pretend we don't - because it's impure....

 

[StoneNYC]

I think it's partially my fault, I was upset at a previous private interaction and took to heart that part of the thread could have to do specifically with my own work. (It was a timing thing) It was inappropriate and as other have reminded me I need to grow a thicker skin if I am to become a great artist, criticism is part of that game.

I've been working on being a better APUGer and I think for the most part I've been doing better and I think some might notice my efforts (I hope).

I'll continue to work on me.

As for "the nude" in ironic twist, often those who's work is criticized after a show or book only gain from they criticism as "free advertising" so it's not all bad to be criticized.

I've said this a few times today, we all create our own reality, anything too far outside of that, and we feel we must confront or avoid it, or it could mess with the very foundation of our sanity...

 

[StoneNYC]

This reminds me of an incident 6 months to a year ago. Someone posted in gallery what I thought was a very well done female nude. The "critical parts" were well outside of critical focus, so you can't see "anything." But, the subject matter was female self-pleasuring. Someone started a thread to talk about this gallery posting. Nasty things were said. The work was pulled by the poster siting lack of respect to his work and his model. (the model saw APUG discussions, apparently)

THAT was sad..... this pseudo puritanism... if that's a real word. It can hurt children! Well, children today see far more explicit stuff on television.... but we must pretend, we must ban those things because it damages something..... We all know what's under clothing. We all know what everybody does in their respective homes. Yet, we pretend we don't - because it's impure....

I agree, if you saw that thread you also saw a post I believe by Sean? I could be wrong... But it reminded us that APUG is international and that there needed to be some degree of censorship or some countries as a whole might block access to the site as it represented values outside of their legally approved laws.

So there's also that....

 

[Xmas]

Lots of people are prim... or taking a work break at work.

Some companies fire people for girlie centre folds from soft pano mags.

 

[Steve Smith]

It can hurt children! Well, children today see far more explicit stuff on television....

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.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[benjiboy]

I have no problem with nudity although I think the majority of people look much better with their clothes on, although I've been a lifetime portrait photographer and like shooting pin -up stuff my personal efforts at shooting tasteful female nudes have been so abysmal that I gave it up about 20 years ago however I do like shooting pin-up stuff and find it much more fun.

 

[dorff]

I have no problem with nudity

Except my own.. I have sympathy with Sean. The galleries are for subscribers only, and so the level of moderation should be limited. I haven't seen anything there that was worse than watching an episode of Game of Thrones, I think.

If there is something worth objecting to, it is tasteless, unimaginative nude photography. I think that does far more harm than the degree of nudity. And there seems to be an awful lot of that around, except here on APUG.

 

[Wayne]

I think it's partially my fault, I was upset at a previous private interaction and took to heart that part of the thread could have to do specifically with my own work.

That explains why I had no idea what you or John were talking about

 

[removed account4]

We're a joke.

We can't have a civilized discussion for longer than a bunch of teens.

if you read the discussion that i started ( the thread ian was referring to )
it was a civilized discussion with a lot of different opinions.
the thread asked what people who make figurative work believe makes "good" work

there weren't many T+A comments so it really wasn't juvenile in that way ...
but unfortunately the thread was hijacked by someone who had an agenda / axe to grind with me ( the OP )
because of something that happened 5-6 months ago and he couldn't let it go.

====


regarding THIS thread ...

so if someone wants to comment that they don't like a nude posted in the gallery
because they find it vulgar or whatever, that person isn't allowed to make a comment about
why they don't like the image?

whether it is because the viewer thought the looked sleezy or they found it offensive for other reasons
i don't see why someone shouldn't be able to post comments about the work ... good or bad.

a lot of figurative work isn't very good ( IMHO ) others are the best photographs i have ever seen.
the not so good stuff is more about " hey look at me, look what i got my model to do, aren't i great "
while the good stuff is from somewhere else. if someone isnt' able to say " ewww " to the bad ones
how is the person who posted it ever going to grow as a photographer.

 

[Wayne]

This reminds me of an incident 6 months to a year ago. Someone posted in gallery what I thought was a very well done female nude. The "critical parts" were well outside of critical focus, so you can't see "anything." But, the subject matter was female self-pleasuring. Someone started a thread to talk about this gallery posting. Nasty things were said. The work was pulled by the poster siting lack of respect to his work and his model. (the model saw APUG discussions, apparently)

THAT was sad..... this pseudo puritanism... if that's a real word. It can hurt children! Well, children today see far more explicit stuff on television.... but we must pretend, we must ban those things because it damages something..... We all know what's under clothing. We all know what everybody does in their respective homes. Yet, we pretend we don't - because it's impure....

I didn't see the incident in question and I have no objection to the subject matter. But I have a difficult time conceiving how it could be done artfully and not pornographically. The title of this thread implies that nudity itself is somehow an art form, and it's not.

 

[eddie]

This reminds me of an incident 6 months to a year ago. Someone posted in gallery what I thought was a very well done female nude. The "critical parts" were well outside of critical focus, so you can't see "anything." But, the subject matter was female self-pleasuring. Someone started a thread to talk about this gallery posting. Nasty things were said. The work was pulled by the poster ...

If it's the image I remember, I found nothing offensive about it, either. The one I'm thinking of was a bromoil, which obscured anything which could be considered graphic. It was only the model's expression which led some to believe she was self-pleasuring.

I really haven't seen much (if any) resistance to nudes being posted in the Gallery. In fact, the ones I've posted are the most viewed of any of my uploads. I'd like to think we're all adult enough to criticize them based on compositional/technical reasons, and not on subject matter.

 

[giannisg2004]

if you read the discussion that i started ( the thread ian was referring to )
it was a civilized discussion with a lot of different opinions.
the thread asked what people who make figurative work believe makes "good" work

there weren't many T+A comments so it really wasn't juvenile in that way ...
but unfortunately the thread was hijacked by someone who had an agenda / axe to grind with me ( the OP )
because of something that happened 5-6 months ago and he couldn't let it go.

====


regarding THIS thread ...

so if someone wants to comment that they don't like a nude posted in the gallery
because they find it vulgar or whatever, that person isn't allowed to make a comment about
why they don't like the image?

whether it is because the viewer thought the looked sleezy or they found it offensive for other reasons
i don't see why someone shouldn't be able to post comments about the work ... good or bad.

a lot of figurative work isn't very good ( IMHO ) others are the best photographs i have ever seen.
the not so good stuff is more about " hey look at me, look what i got my model to do, aren't i great "
while the good stuff is from somewhere else. if someone isnt' able to say " ewww " to the bad ones
how is the person who posted it ever going to grow as a photographer.

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.

 

[Ian Grant]

I didn't see the incident in question and I have no objection to the subject matter. But I have a difficult time conceiving how it could be done artfully and not pornographically. The title of this thread implies that nudity itself is somehow an art form, and it's not.

No the title of the thread is: "Attitudes to nudity and photography as well as other art forms".

The title is about nudity and photography and nudity and sculpture, drawing, painting, film, video etc - (the other art forms), so not implying that nudity itself is an art form.

There are have been issues over the years with classical nude sculptures being disfigured in more puritanical times. The borderline between whats acceptable in society and what's pornographic is indistinct and open to different interpretations, In my case my rule of thumb was always what I felt would be acceptable to show my mother, which was tasteful nudity with no explicit detail of private parts.

Ian

 

[gandolfi]

If it's the image I remember, I found nothing offensive about it, either. The one I'm thinking of was a bromoil, which obscured anything which could be considered graphic. It was only the model's expression which led some to believe she was self-pleasuring.

.

and a "fun" fact: the image or rather the motive is still in the gallery... The bromoil version was pulled as a "discussion" was taken from the gallery to the open forum - and it was not really nice read...

 

[Jaf-Photo]

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.

Mind you there are some photographers who do it well. But I only get irritated when I browse the film groups on flickr and see photos by guys who obviosuly have been photographing their gf without clothes.

It's not big or clever.

 

[eddie]

and a "fun" fact: the image or rather the motive is still in the gallery... The bromoil version was pulled as a "discussion" was taken from the gallery to the open forum - and it was not really nice read...

Well, I thought it was a beautiful image, created by a master of the genre.

 

[removed account4]

it is easy to suggest that portraiture
( or architectural work, or still lifes, landscapes or pet photography or abstractions or ... ( fill in the blank) )
is a much better use of photography, it's easy that way

it it has to do with "quality" .. there are just as many "not so good" portraits, architectural photograph, landscapes, pet-0-graphs, abstractions still lifes &c
as there "not so good" nudes ...
its just that nudes ( and pet-0-graphs) ( good or bad ) get more hype because there is someone without clothes in the photograph ... and humans like to oogle.
( and all pet-0-graphs are "soo cute!" )

 

[tkamiya]

I didn't see the incident in question and I have no objection to the subject matter. But I have a difficult time conceiving how it could be done artfully and not pornographically. The title of this thread implies that nudity itself is somehow an art form, and it's not.

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.