beautiful photograph --- OR --- a photograph of beauty?

[Don Wallace]

I am reluctant to say anything, but what the hell, it's a forum. I never quite got the "nude in the woods" thing. At best, it is incredibly kitschy; at worst, say when the figure (usually female) is lying in a stream, it looks like a crime scene photo ("yah, looks like she was tossed from the bridge and the water washed her down here. Poor kid. But she ran with a wierd crowd - these old guys that use big wooden cameras. Whaddya expect?").

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Paul Cocklin]

I may be the only male on the planet who means this, but I can appreciate the beauty of a naked woman without it being a sexual appreciation. Some nudes are incredibly well done and would, to me, certainly be considered 'art'. However, those are few and far between. The vast majority of nudes just don't have anything significant to say other than 'Hey look, she's nude!'. Or perhaps I just love certain processes. I've seen some plat&pall. prints that exhibit such beautiful creaminess and smoothness of TONES that one almost doesn't notice it's just a nude at first.

Overall, though, I think that there's a difference between the visual appreciation of a beautiful image/form and the visceral appreciation of something which we know to be true presented in a photograph. And between the two, the pretty pic vs. the gut punch, I think the gut punch wins every time.

 

[MattKing]

Is it always necessary to be exceptional or extra-ordinary?

I agree that it is something to aspire to, but I certainly am not irritated if something I create is merely good.

Beauty can be somewhat commonplace too, in that there is beauty all around us in this world. If our photographs are merely faithful to that beauty, do they fail?

Matt

 

[jd callow]

No they do not fail.
There is something to be said for comfortingly common, subtle, nuanced, familiar, slightly askew, and on and on.

 

[cloudhands]

I think the discussion could be broadened to the idea of a good subject making a good photograph, or a photograph that relies more on technique, creativity, and luck. If you shoot nothing but strong, visually powerful subjects, you'll have a bunch of good photographs, but it might not be ultimately satisfying. Sometimes, I'll see a photo that has such a great subject and that's what I love about it. Other times, I'll think, "Oh, please. That was a slow, easy pitch, wasn't it?" I love beautiful women, but I feel like they're the equivalent of a "gimme" photo most of the time.

 

[PeteZ8]

I'm going to add to my previous response. I find it almost inevitable that beautiful images come from ordinary and/or "unappealing" subjects. My response is in photograph format at www.cherylnicolai.com , under "the regulars" gallery.

- CJ

WOW. I don't know what else to say. "The Regulars" gallery is just outstanging.

Looks like a pretty fun place to hang out too.

 

[sly]

My favourite is the hopelessly incongruent nude in the woods or nude on the felled tree (both with 3" pumps) and or the infinitely more minimal and therefore artistic nude with umbrella or nude with cabbage and the obligatory comment: "nice tones."

You left out the scantily clad (or unclad) girl with hot rod/motorcycle/truck. Somehow alot of these have been crossing my eyeballs lately. Very briefly - I'd rather look at the incongrous nude in the woods.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

In his book The Model William Mortensen has a whole black-list of nudes. Just a second. The Nujol Nude: "This practice of drenching the body in oil creates a very unpleasant empathic impression of sliminess and uncleanliness. It also offends against the structure of the body by placing violent highlights in places where highlights have no business to be." Others are the prudy-nudy, dislocated nude, pretzel nude, speckled nude, sunset-silhouette nude, crepe de chine nude, Tiffany nude, abraded nude (sitting on a rough rock)... Pretty funny stuff.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

My favourite is the hopelessly incongruent nude in the woods or nude on the felled tree (both with 3" pumps) and or the infinitely more minimal and therefore artistic nude with umbrella or nude with cabbage and the obligatory comment: "nice tones."

Yup, for as many "lost nudes in the woods" that I've ogled over in magazines and on line, I've yet to see one out in the wild. I'm still hoping. Maybe I'll see one on one of my outings, wearing say, a pair of hiking boots and a baseball cap?

 

[PeteZ8]

Yup, for as many "lost nudes in the woods" that I've ogled over in magazines and on line, I've yet to see one out in the wild. I'm still hoping. Maybe I'll see one on one of my outings, wearing say, a pair of hiking boots and a baseball cap?

Location location location... (and timing, you're a little late).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/nude-hiking-in-alps-banne_n_191691.html

 

[eddym]

Like Paul said earlier, I think Migrant Worker is great because the viewer empathizes with the subject. It is somehow interacting with our humanity...while the inane nude only stimulates our lust.

Hey, c'mon, can't you empathize with the poor nekkid young woman? I mean, she's lying there sprawled across those cold, hard rocks (or logs, or sand, or whatever), probably freezing, the rocks bruising or abrading her skin, some kinda disgusting creepy-crawly thing walking up her back, ants biting her butt, whilst her jerk boyfriend/photographer(?) implores her to look more sexy, just one more, now try raising your leg more, inhale and hold your breath, just one more...
And she's thinking, if he has some kinda amorous plans for afterwards, he can just forget it!

:munch:

 

[VaryaV]

I've yet to see one out in the wild. I'm still hoping. Maybe I'll see one on one of my outings, wearing say, a pair of hiking boots and a baseball cap?

They're elusive creatures................ like bigfoot.

Hey, c'mon, can't you empathize with the poor nekkid young woman? I mean, she's lying there sprawled across those cold, hard rocks (or logs, or sand, or whatever), probably freezing.

Well, you could take her some hot chocolate......

 

[WolfTales]

There's a difference between making a good test strip versus a good print.

Not only that but what are you trying to say in the photograph? A picture is worth 1000 words. Are those words you would find yourself saying to your mother or sister? How about a good friend? Or the CEO of a big company?

 

[BradS]

Is it always necessary to be exceptional or extra-ordinary?

I agree that it is something to aspire to, but I certainly am not irritated if something I create is merely good.

Beauty can be somewhat commonplace too, in that there is beauty all around us in this world. If our photographs are merely faithful to that beauty, do they fail?

Matt

No....uh...mmm, seems I've not really been able to clearly say what I mean. I'm saying that yes...there is beauty everywhere, much of it, the more interesting and challenging type, is precisely that beauty which is so subtle that it normally evades our notice. It irritates me that so many viewers are completely incapable to see any kind of beauty that doesn't reach out from the photo and bitch slap them. There is (almost) no recognition of even the possibility that a photo or other visual art migth be "good" even though it has no perfectly shaped or brightly colored subject....cloudhands has also pretty much clearly stated the point....

I think the discussion could be broadened to the idea of a good subject making a good photograph, or a photograph that relies more on technique, creativity, and luck. If you shoot nothing but strong, visually powerful subjects, you'll have a bunch of good photographs, but it might not be ultimately satisfying. Sometimes, I'll see a photo that has such a great subject and that's what I love about it. Other times, I'll think, "Oh, please. That was a slow, easy pitch, wasn't it?" I love beautiful women, but I feel like they're the equivalent of a "gimme" photo most of the time.

exactly!

 

[Peter De Smidt]

How is that different, say, from photographing in Yosemite? Or slot canyons? ... There are lots of things and places that are incredibly beautiful, and it's relatively easy to take a decent photo of them. Sure, sometimes I see a photo and think "Not again!" Other times I see one and my reaction is "Yes, I've seen something similar before, but there's a reason for that. It makes a pretty good photo." Whether I find such a picture interesting or not depends on how well it's done, my mood, and what pictures I've been looking at lately. Sure, I like well-done pictures of ordinary things. Let's face it, though. That's been done before too.

 

[BradS]

How is that different, say, from photographing in Yosemite? Or slot canyons?

No difference. That's why I find the work of David Muench (for example) so utterly uninteresting.

There are lots of things and places that are incredibly beautiful, and it's relatively easy to take a decent photo of them. Sure, sometimes I see a photo and think "Not again!" Other times I see one and my reaction is "Yes, I've seen something similar before, but there's a reason for that. It makes a pretty good photo." Whether I find such a picture interesting or not depends on how well it's done, my mood, and what pictures I've been looking at lately. Sure, I like well-done pictures of ordinary things. Let's face it, though. That's been done before too.

Whether it has been done before or not is missing the point. The point is that the natural beauty was there for the taking. How hard is it to make a beautiful photograph of a person, place or thing of great natural beauty? Maybe it is no harder to make a great photo of an object or being of less obvious beauty or having no really obvious beauty at all...but which one gets the recognition? Why?

 

[WolfTales]

'Making' a fine print is different from 'taking' a decent photo. It involves making a fine test strip in between!

 

[Peter De Smidt]

The point is that the natural beauty was there for the taking. How hard is it to make a beautiful photograph of a person, place or thing of great natural beauty?

It's not that hard. But to make a photograph of such a subject that stands out from the hordes of other similar photos is hard.

A friend of mine is a beautiful young women who does self-portraits, many of them nude. Her work is very well done and unique, in my opinion, of course. Not only that, what she does is difficult, often taking 100 or more tries until she gets it right. On top of that, her post production is outstanding. I'm fairly good with ze Photoshop but I would have a hard time replicating her work.

Her photos get a lot of attention, most of it positive, but she also gets the "Sheesh. A pretty girl taking pretty pictures of herself" type of comment. Ok. That's a legitimate reaction, but in reading some of the comments there seems to be an undercurrent of jealously. The critic seems pissed off that people aren't paying as much attention to his work, which he implies is much better artistically than hers. When questioned about this, he often goes into a diatribe against the whole genre of beautiful nudes and moans about the cosmic unfairness of its enduring popularity.

It's also not true that the harder a picture is to make the better picture it will be. A friend of mine is a very good photographer. He does the backpacking photo trips...all very hardcore. One morning he woke up and saw beautiful frost on his window. He quickly got at and snapped some pictures. Well, the results are stunning. His picture has won all kinds of awards, and it deserves too. I like it better than any of his other photos, even though many of them required tremendously more effort.

 

[Bruce Watson]

The point is that the natural beauty was there for the taking. How hard is it to make a beautiful photograph of a person, place or thing of great natural beauty? Maybe it is no harder to make a great photo of an object or being of less obvious beauty or having no really obvious beauty at all...but which one gets the recognition? Why?

Where art is concerned the amount of effort is completely meaningless. I've worked my tail of for some images coming back day after day after day to get it right. And others I've sort of fallen into and have a winner after 20 minutes work.

It's not about how hard it is. It's about how you see. And in particular, if how you see resonates with how other people see. The most successful artists seem to have a knack for making prints that other people want to own, and people want to own prints which resonate with them. If they can make some sort of connection with the print, they are most of the way through the justification process of buying it.

As to your question "...which one gets the recognition? Why?" I think that most humans are drawn to beauty. I know I'd rather look at something beautiful vs. something ugly any day of the week. So pictures of death, destruction, and decay (the three Ds) aren't on my walls. No matter how well done.

 

[WolfTales]

Hey if he can take photos intuitively without relying on thinking about the steps in between, all the more power to him. For the rest of us there are instructions

 

[Bosaiya]

The notion of taking the ordinary, the obvious, and attempting to turn it into something more has been the impetus of my photographic drive from the start. When faced with something of natural "normal" beauty I find myself at a stammering loss, not only because I do not know what to do but because I cannot help but think that it has been done before - to death. At that point it is simply an exercise, going through the motions, and I become bored.

Charles Jones remains the most inspirational photographer for me. The work he did with vegetables simply transcends. That hard-to-pinpoint quality of transcension is what I look for when I evaluate photographs, regardless of subject matter. It's either present or it is absent, and when it is absent the photograph has for me the same lifelessness as the eyes of a dead fish, beautiful subject matter or not.

As an artist I am continually frustrated by my own successes and failures. Failure is an end in and of itself while success means having to move forward without being self-derivative. In a world where everything has been done it is sometimes difficult for me to find the momentum needed to achieve a clarity of vision and I find myself falling back into the mechanical clichés I dislike so much.

Like Cheryl (and others) I prefer non-models when working with people. When I do work with models it is with the intent of breaking them out of their comfort zone and hopefully revealing something... different. Time will tell if I am able to overcome my own "Nude on rock #73" limitations.

 

[Tim Gray]

A friend of mine is a beautiful young women who does self-portraits, many of them nude. Her work is very well done and unique, in my opinion, of course. Not only that, what she does is difficult, often taking 100 or more tries until she gets it right. On top of that, her post production is outstanding. I'm fairly good with ze Photoshop but I would have a hard time replicating her work.

There's a photographer like that (minus the nude part) on flickr whom I followed briefly. She's very pretty and very talented. Great post production, great composition, all of her. After about 10 photos though, I got really bored. Though technically they are outstanding photographs, and any one of them would probably be great in a portfolio as they are eye catching, something about a body of work that is so... one dimensional, it just gets very boring. And when you get down to it, these photos at least were mostly just fluff (we'll ignore the narcissistic part of it). They ultimately didn't make me feel much. Pretty girl smiling. Pretty girl jumping. Pretty girl frowning. On and on and on. So even though she is very talented and makes visually appealing photographs, unfortunately, it kind of did just reduce to a pretty girl taking pictures of herself for me.

But to be fair, it just doesn't fall in my areas of interest when it comes to photography and art.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

There's no reason to like something different than what you like. Tastes are personal, and no one's taste is any better than anyone else's. To show otherwise, you'd have to prove that an objective standard exists, show what it contains and be able to compare people's tastes to that standard. A brief look into such a matter would quickly show that that's not going to happen anytime soon. (This is not to say that there aren't interesting statistical analysis about what people do like.) As a result, I have no issue whatsoever in anyone's reaction to a specific print. I may like it. They may not. No problem. For example, I can't stand Eward Weston's nudes, whereas others hold them in high regard. What concerns me, though, is when people claim that what they like is somehow more valuable or better than the taste of others. This "my way is the best way" type of thinking is not only philosophically unsupported, it's caused a lot of problems historically.

 

[Tim Gray]

Haha. True. Unfortunately, most people go around saying "my way is the best way," or at least act that way.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

WOW. I don't know what else to say. "The Regulars" gallery is just outstanging.

Looks like a pretty fun place to hang out too.

Thank you, and yes, it's a sometimes excessively fun place to hang out. Come on down.

I find perfection (and therefore beauty) boring. It just doesn't do anything for me. I don't like new houses, fresh paint, or anything like that. There's no character.