Commenting on nudes: When is it "ogling" and what are its consequences?

light leak

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
147
Location
Morris, Illi
Format
Multi Format
I can't believe I read the whole thing!

There were so many points along the way that I wanted comment on but I think one towards the beginning of this thread hit the nail on the head. I can honestly say that as long as I've been a member of APUG, I've never seen a photograph where I thought the photographers intent was for men to oogle the model. Nothing I thought was even remotely pornographic. Unfortunately, when a figure is less than technically sound (for lack of a better phrase) it can come across as a nudie pic. You just don't get this reaction from a poorly executed landscape. But in every case, I believe it was the photographer's best effort. Maybe that photographer isn't Edward Weston - yet. Give them time. Give them encouragement. Don't give them grief for pursuing something that interests them just because it doesn't interest you.

Now, I'm not going to deny that there have been some pretty ugly comments out there. I've seen them. We've all seen them. Just how ugly is where the human factor comes in. It's kind of personal. Kind of subjective. Much like the art we're all here to celebrate. And yes, I think we need to learn to live with some of it. To expect to never be offended in a public forum is a little bit like expecting perfection from the human race.

As for the rest of this stuff - I wouldn't know where to begin. Let me just say this. I don't think the world will ever live as one big happy family. But I do believe we can narrow it down to two groups - those that are inclusive and those that are not.
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format
gr82bart said:
I agree. I think he's left APUG too; not sure.

Regards, Art.
Click to expand...

Well you remember the ramifications and outfall of Scott's gallery posting many months ago that resulted in in-fighting, an exodus of many of the prominent long time members of APUG along with many of us (including myself) drastically limiting our participation.

Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Sanders is still here I believe. He just doesn't post often. I do recall that he withdrew his nudes because he felt under siege for posting them. Primarily from inappropriate comments, not only from those who were titillated by his work when that was not his intent, but also from those who critiqued it in an exuberantly harsh manner, on a repeated basis. His removal of his nudes and subsequent diminishment of his participation here had NOTHING to do with my posting, if anything it was in sympathy for the barrage I endured.
 

light leak

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
147
Location
Morris, Illi
Format
Multi Format

It was pretty sad. He got hammered for doing his best on a personal project.
I don't get it.
 

light leak

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
147
Location
Morris, Illi
Format
Multi Format
Nobody should be taking a beating for simply honing their craft on subject matter that is important to them.
 

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format
light leak said:
Nobody should be taking a beating for simply honing their craft on subject matter that is important to them.
Click to expand...

Now you have an idea how it works in reverse. As an example for those of us that post color work and landscape in particular, the membership shows much less involvement, views and comments regarding our work when compared with like work in B & W. This is in part why many of us color photographers at times feel much like outsiders here at APUG.

Rich
 

jstraw

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,699
Location
Topeka, Kans
Format
Multi Format

There are so many minorities here...lith printers, alt processers, Holga shooters, color photographers, home-cookery chemists...
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format

I do understand where your coming from Rich, but I don't think disinterest is quite in the same league as derision. Are just fewer traditional color enthusiasts? IDK, but I haven't seen anybody bashing you for shooting color landscapes( Mighty fine ones, I might add)

I do like seeing your work posted here, and I almost always look at it, whether I comment, or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

naturephoto1

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,960
Location
Breinigsville
Format
Multi Format

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response. I know that Robert and I appreciate your consideration and friendship very much. Just the fact that you posted the image for Robert and me in your gallery was very very much appreciated. You are a good friend.

Rich
 

DrPablo

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
814
Location
North Caroli
Format
Multi Format
light leak said:
I've never seen a photograph where I thought the photographers intent was for men to oogle the model.
Click to expand...

As has been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In other words, when it comes to viewing and appreciating photographs, it doesn't matter what the photographer's intentions are!!! The finished product speaks much louder than the intentions.

Part of being an artist is understanding your audience, and imagining your own work from other points of view.

It's simply biology that men are easily aroused by visual things. (If they act or comment on their arousal is a different phenomenon).

So if you're innocently shooting beautiful nudes to convey grace, and it would never occur to you that it is a sexual image, know that it will unavoidably be that way for much of your audience. They may appreciate the grace as well and composition as well, but that's a second order appreciation -- biological reflexes come first. If you shoot a full frontal of a nude woman under a waterfall, no one is looking first at the mist from the waterfall.

Point is, art is about execution and not intentions. So if you're not getting the responses you want, then you're not creating the images you think you are.
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format

It DOES "occur to me" that there is a sexual aspect to those images - I am neither insensitive, asexual nor blind. This is not meant to be denial. My PRIMARY, MOST IMPORTANT - overwhelmingly so - intent is to capture that magical grace - at times I think my efforts are enhanced by the sexuality, and at times it seems that I have to work through it. This is complicated - something like trying to describe the soul in not more than three words.

Point is, art is about execution and not intentions. So if you're not getting the responses you want, then you're not creating the images you think you are.
Click to expand...

Let me attempt to untangle this: I most definitely "create the images I think I make." The issue here would be "reality testing". I think the odds are fairly good that my reality testing system is reasonably OK - no one can be SURE.

I may NOT create the response in others that I would like - at least not every time.

However, I have to do my OWN work. That will be my BEST work - all else will be, to some degree, an inferior imitation of someone else's.
When someone else "sees" the work as I do ... how can I say this .... KOWABUNGA!!! a time for rejoicing and the blare of trumpets. It is great to find someone else with a vision similar to mine.
There are many who will not "get" the work. There are some (seems to be considerably more that one would expect) that DO.

Net result: Move on ...
 

DrPablo

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
814
Location
North Caroli
Format
Multi Format
Nothing wrong with that, Ed. You can't control everyone's reactions, and if your artistic endeavors are self-expression, then people's reactions become less important. There are many potential layers to an image, and even if someone's immediate reaction is carnal, that doesn't mean they can't get past that and look at its other nuances. I only wish people would be a little less candid with voicing their carnal reactions when commenting on nude photos, because honestly that's the simplest thing to comment on and it usually neglects the most meaningful aspects of the photo.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format

In my opinion, many of the inappropriate comments or critiques reveal far more about the person commenting, than the photograph.

This should be a consideration the comment poster should consider, but the mental make up of such persons who react instead of consider, usually limits this sort of self examination.

If a majority "get it" I feel it works. There is no accounting for the vices, hangups, and insecurities of a vocal minority.

It was very sad that Sanders removed his work from the site because of the quirks of a few. If you approach what can be difficult or controversial subject matter to some, a thick skin is in order. One can learn a great deal of the human condition, and become a better artist.
 
OP
OP

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format


Jason- I agree 100%. I've never objected to the presence of nudes on this site - I'd be a hypocrite of the first order if I did. Some of the best ones posted here are quite stunning, and I've even seen a few female nudes I'd be proud to hang on my wall. It is the tone of the commentary, particularly the seeming excessive praise of what is a mediocre nude, that makes the praise come across as closet ogling and 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge' commentary. Too often a just another B&B shot (boob & bush) gets praise that a rock-and-tree shot of similar quality would not garner, and gets a free pass for flaws that a rock-and-tree shot would not be exempt from.

And there is a distinct difference between critique and criticism. That's another argument that we have here on an ongoing basis - some folks mistake the one for the other, and over-react to qualified critique as if it were a personal attack on the very fiber of their being. At best it says that folks here are passionately committed to their work, and have deeply invested feelings in the photographs they produce. At worst, it speaks to insecurity and an unwillingness to learn.
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
There is no way to control the perception of and reaction to a photograph. So why bother trying?
 

catem

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,358
Location
U.K.
Format
Multi Format
Um - 'C' words...

Cordial Conversation Comes Close to Catastrophe ? (definition of internet forum discussions? )

Cos Ceeping (sic) Cool (it's Cruel) Can Create Crisis just as Clearly as Clouting Comrades with Crap...

Maybe I'm getting Cynical (does that Count?)
 

Helen B

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
1,590
Location
Hell's Kitch
Format
Multi Format
Never mind pictures of nudes or colour landscapes, how many of you remember the furore that erupted when I posted a series of pictures of tissue boxes in colour? I never recovered from the onslaught, and removed most of them.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Best,
Helen
 

Roger Hicks

Member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,895
Location
Northern Aqu
Format
35mm RF

For you, Cate...

Cynosure

R.
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,366
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
Helen B said:
you remember the furore that erupted when I posted a series of pictures of tissue boxes in colour? I never recovered from the onslaught, and removed most of them.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm slow, but I don't see anything that would cause a furore in that picture. Am I missing something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…