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

[MenacingTourist]

Dead horse or not I think this thread is a timely if not lengthy reminder of our actions. Lots of people with lots of background here.

I for one have noticed the comments Scott and others have mentioned. They don't exactly jump out at me but are more like blips on the radar. I try to ignore them like I ignore annoying people everywhere

I'm cool with nudes and the male/female form. I'd better as I work for a lingerie company.

Peace Out

 

[Ed Sukach]

I tried my own search for inappropriate comments - I think I found one.
I wonder if this is the type of comment you are referring to:

"...Oh, Curt....I wish... to be that thin and that well endowed."

A comment to an image entitled "Felipe", posted on November 21, 2006 - in YOUR gallery - by, let's see --- YOU!

Well then ... it seems to me that the point here is that it is permissable to post comments like this to male nude images, but NOT to female nude images.

 

[Andy K]

I tried my own search for inappropriate comments - I think I found one.
I wonder if this is the type of comment you are referring to:

"...Oh, Curt....I wish... to be that thin and that well endowed."

A comment to an image entitled "Felipe", posted on November 21, 2006 - in YOUR gallery - by, let's see --- YOU!

Well then ... it seems to me that the point here is that it is permissable to post comments like this to male nude images, but NOT to female nude images.

That is entirely different to the comments TFC is referring to. I never look at a female nude and think, 'Oh I wish I had boobs like like hers!'
But I have looked at male nudes and thought, 'I wish I had that physique.'

 

[jd callow]

It is a high art to be able to create a nude that minimizes the sexuality, or normalizes it with other gender or human specific aspects or redirects it to support a larger meaning. A nude that speaks only to the sexuality of the subject is not inherently bad, but also not terribly difficult to do. An artist that looks for any excuses to put a sexually fit person in the scene is a step lower still.

I don't find too many comments in the gallery that I find sexist. I do find a lot of mediocre work that uses fit, young, naked women as the subject getting a high number of views and comments. Often the comments seem a bit of a reach "nice tones", "excellent composition" or "great expression." I'd prefer a bit more honesty where tones, composition and expression might be replaced with the favorite private bit.

The quantity of views is human nature and doesn't say much except that we are curious. I do think the quantity of not-so-good images of buck naked 'babes' would be and is off putting for women, gay men, those who are made uncomfortable by nudity and images that border on the sexual and those who find the work intellectually weak and or occasionally exploitive.

The quantity of views isn’t an issue for me, but the weak treatment and the occasional exploitive images are annoying.

Painting the figure was my first concentration in college. I spent many hours painting the human form and studying how it has been depicted from fertility goddesses through to Pearlstein. This leaves me a pretty singular/personal take on the subject. I wouldn't want anyone to stop taking nude images of any kind if that is what they are driven to do, but I would like folks to challenge themselves a little more, think a little harder and even study the subject -- the best figure work is not photographic. I am pretty sure that the same could be said about rocks and trees, barns and seascapes and all the other subjects that I don’t have an affinity for and therefore tend to ignore.

In the end I see it this way
The figure is really tough to do well; It is a loaded subject that can easily offend; and the vast majority of the work posted and the comments made are not offensive.

 

[gr82bart]

Okay, I get it. This is a site for MEN. They really should spell that out on the entrance page somewhere so women don't join by mistake.

Ummm ... Yeah, that's what I'm really saying.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

Art- the difference in admitting it and doing something about it is in deciding do we want to keep APUG a straight white (for the most part) middle-aged male club, or do we want it to be someplace where non-male, non-straight, non-white folks feel comfortable contributing?

Scott,

This is the way I see it. It's law of averages. There's way more straight guys on this site than any other demographic. It just is. I am not saying this right or wrong or that I don't want to change the numbers (I am always pushing for more women on this site). So what can be done? I dunno - read my response below. Seriously, it's not like the gallery is 'busting' with girlie nudes. (Like that pun?) So what if the 100 or so girlie shots out of the 15000+ images have a disproportionate number of views? Like I said, the site is filled with straight men. Straight men are attracted to the younger female nude. We are hardwired that way. Some of us admit to it, some intellectualize it, others are shamefull voyeurs. Whatever.

Call me simple and yes this is a generalization, but older men taking images of and/or looking at young slim fit female nudes have only one thing in mind - and that's not artistic merit.

If you want to tell someone their model is HOT, and congratulate them for bagging such a stunning number, by all means, say so - in a PM to the photographer. Or in a letter to Penthouse Forum. Or go to Hooters and have some hot wings.

So you know I agree with you on this one. But again, let's throw some sanity here since again, the gallery is not BUSTING with girlie images - far from it. Is this a real problem, is this a perception problem or is this a personal issue? I'd like to see some data that shows me this either of the first two.

Aside: I can post images of coloured girlie nudes if that would eliminate the race issue, plus I do have nude men images too, but I still can't find them in my archives yet. Hey! maybe the next monthly shooting assignment should be a nude of any human that is NOT a young fit slim female ...

Regards, Art.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Okay, sorting the Standard and Critique galleries by number of views (anyone can do this--I'm not using my moderatorly powers as far as I know), indeed, nudes get a high number of views.

But interestingly the most popular images in each gallery are two by Alex Hawley.

Check out the bales on this one--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And man, if I had a silo like that--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Art- it would be a welcome change to show some women of color. Unclothed or otherwise. Represent for the brother(sister)hood! I don't think it will by any means eliminate the race issue, but it might make a few folks who are not melanin-deprived feel a little better represented. I'm not saying I have a cure for this issue. Certainly, also, I'm not about to claim that I can speak for anyone else on this site other than myself. But at the same time, I don't think my grounding is so far off in left field in a not-so-parallel plane of existence that you can, or SHOULD, try to pin this as a "Scott's personal problem" issue. As has been noted here by others, not just myself, this is not uniquely my perception. I just happen to be the one who cared enough to speak up about it first and loudest. Taking an "it just IS that way, so put up with it" approach didn't sit well with the civil rights movement. If it did, we'd still have Jim Crow laws in this country.

 

[gr82bart]

I don't think my grounding is so far off in left field in a not-so-parallel plane of existence that you can, or SHOULD, try to pin this as a "Scott's personal problem" issue.

Hmmm ... I can see how that was interpreted. My bad. That's not what I meant.

As has been noted here by others, not just myself, this is not uniquely my perception. I just happen to be the one who cared enough to speak up about it first and loudest.

Actually, you're not the first. There were other posts on this subject. I remember, I just don't have the time to search around for them.

Then again, there was a lot of bruhaha about the one or two certain penis images in the gallery too. Was that a real problem, perceptual one, or personal issue? Is the artistic merit and justification for those images any different than for the girlie images in the gallery? Was the fact there were a lot of views for those images, albeit for different reasons, any more righteous than the disproportionate number of views for the few girlie images in the gallery?

Taking an "it just IS that way, so put up with it" approach didn't sit well with the civil rights movement. If it did, we'd still have Jim Crow laws in this country.

Oiy. Well, this is not what I am saying either. Anyway, you know better.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

I kinda want to see what all the fuss is about. Someone point me to these contraversial images and their respective comments?

Honestly, I haven't seen a lot of well composed, posed or lighted nudes in a long, long while. Most of the ones I have seen (in thumbnails) were, to me, bad or mediocre snaps taken by a larger format camera.

Regards, Art.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Art- unfortunately, a goodly portion of the images that provided the genesis for this dustup are no longer posted on the site. This is not a slam of the photographer who posted them, but it is a critique of the response to them. It was also part of the reason he removed them from the site.

 

[gr82bart]

I don't have a magic bullet solution to changing the perception by non-straight males that this is a site largely for straight males.

Wait a sec. I just read this post - it's a long thread and I'm not reading all the post in order. What's this thread about anyway? So now, I'm confused. I thought the thread was about the disproportionate number of views toa certain genre of images - let's call them girlie images?

Then it morphs to the tackless comments made to some those same images.

Now it's about the perception that the site is largely for straight men only?

Sorry, Scott, but I think this is an escalation of a mole hill to a mountain.

The linchpin of this argument is if there is an interest in changing that perception, or in maintaining that perception.

In the comments thread on one photo of a female nude, one photographer here made comments about what a great model she was, and that he too had enjoyed using her. To someone not familiar with the two photographers in question, this could sound like a Kamera Klub "model"-swapping where the interest was other than professional.

Ummm ... did you notice the comments: "That place was great and I've taken great images there too"? Is that Camera Clubish too? So what?

I now honestly don't get it now. What exactly is the problem?

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

Scott,

Let's call a spade a spade - you mean Saunder's images? Sure, that's most of what he posted and yeah, most of the (straight) men were gushing over them like pubescent school boys. So?

Regards, Art.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Let's call a spade a spade - you mean Saunder's images?

And let's call Sanders "Sanders."

 

[AZLF]

Scott,

Let's call a spade a spade - you mean Saunder's images? Sure, that's most of what he posted and yeah, most of the (straight) men were gushing over them like pubescent school boys. So?

I just went and looked. Sanders's images have had just under 4000 viewings and 92 comments. I wouldn't call that "most" of the straight men.

And certainly not this one. He has a style that apparently appeals to many but holds little interest to me.

 

[Gay Larson]

What is this thread about?? The obvious...that a lot of men like to look at nude women? We've noticed already.

 

[Ed Sukach]

That is entirely different to the comments TFC is referring to. I never look at a female nude and think, 'Oh I wish I had boobs like like hers!'

There ARE those who still ARE male (retaining the the necessary characteristics) who have chosen to be perceived as females, complete with hormonal shots, feathered boas ... whatever.

But I have looked at male nudes and thought, 'I wish I had that physique.'

It is NOT the most intensive point of interest to me, either, but this is a digression form my point... this is in itself a sexist remark, in the same vein as, "Wow, what a rack!! I wish my chosen partner had jugs like that."

I would NOT post a comment like that. I would NOT say that in a locker room. or schmoozing at an art gallery.

Let me recap - we are limiting this discussion to "inappropriate comments:, excluding "content" - aren;t we?

 

[Dinesh]

Represent for the brother(sister)hood! I don't think it will by any means eliminate the race issue.

There is a race issue now?

...but it might make a few folks who are not melanin-deprived feel a little better represented.

I am "not melanin-deprived" and I feel well represented here, by those who chose to use film.

...I'm not about to claim that I can speak for anyone else on this site other than myself.

But aren't you doing just that by stating that "not melanin-deprived" people are feeling under represented?

...I just happen to be the one who cared enough to speak up about it first and loudest.

Has this issue not been brought up before?



Scott, I have to admit it, but if there is picture of a naked woman, I look. I can't help it. If that makes me a sexist creep, so be it.
While I agree that sexist, racist or sexual orientaion comments have no place on APUG, I have yet to see evidence that these are as widespread as you would lead me to believe.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Call me simple and yes this is a generalization, but older men taking images of and/or looking at young slim fit female nudes have only one thing in mind - and that's not artistic merit.

I fit the category of, "Older men taking images of and/or looking at young slender slim fit female nudes..."

I realize you are generalizing and that is a dangerous and rocky road in itself, but - "I have one thing in mind - and that's not artistic merit"?

Before I explode, I'll ask two questions:

1. What then, IS the one thing I have in mind?

2. How on Earth were you able to determine that ... and apply it, in theory, to "ALL older men taking images of ... female nudes"?

A few of us "older types" were talking over coffee (actually helping an old acquaintance of one of us, hanging her show in the Gallery). The subject of why we do what we do - our motivations - came up.

Mine, dredged from somewhere deep in my pre-conscious:

I have noticed a distinct change in the being of a woman when she is dressed and when she is not dressed. There seems to be a sudden change - a marked increase of what I choose to call grace in their nude state. The most awkward, hesitant models of any an ALL body types seem to "glide" everywhere when unencumbered by cloth armor - they remind me a LOT of accomplished Ballerinas.

I am trying to capture that GRACE.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Deleted

 

[SuzanneR]

Grace???

If I were in the vicinity of a camera without any clothes on, the photographer would be saying, please... PLEASE put your clothes back on!!!

 

[phritz phantom]

the ranking of photography.about.com:
(hasn't changed in the last few months.)

Most Popular:
Family Pictures: Naturally Naked
Nudes 1920-1940
Nude 101: Good Examples
Nude photography, 1840-1920
Nude photography, 1840-1920: The Body

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Dinesh- don't worry, you're not a sexist creep. You're just Canadian And we all still love you just as much. Part of the problem is that I'm losing my articulation as this thread goes on, and I continue to deal with the brou-ha-ha over on the social outing at Foto3 thread simultaneously. I may well have made arguments I should not have, or made them in haste and therefore poorly. For that I apologize. And if I have spoken for people who didn't want/need my speaking for them, I apologize too for that.

And Dinesh, I was NOT the one who raised the issue of the hit count. I could care less how many people like to look at any given image. I specifically raised the issue of the tone of commentary. Other folks brought in that argument on their own.

 

[gminerich]

I was under the impression that APUG was a group of photographers dedicated to non-digital photography. I frequently visited the free areas until I was convinced there were no agendas, them I joined. It appears that I was mistaken. Over the past month many forums have degenerated into bickering and a stage to expound on political correctness. Even worse, several have turned into a furball of intolerance.

This site contains art; you may not like some and I don't like some of it but that’s personal taste. I may be mistaken but most of us are adults and its time to start acting like it. The solution is pretty simple; if you don’t like nudes, don’t click on the thumbnail. If you don’t like the comments don’t read them. If you think there are not enough male nudes or too many skinny female nudes, go shoot some nude males or voluptuous females and post them. If you worried about how many hits an image gets go shoot something attention grabbing and post it. Let your art talk!

Last time I checked APUG meant Analog Photographers Users Group. It does not stand for no nudes, too many middle-aged straight white guys, life style preference, or no titillation. There are plenty of other groups to support what ever cause you choose.

Art is art; lets leave APUG about photography, a free exchange of ideas, working to improve our craft and preserving the latent image.

George Minerich

As pogo said, "I have met the enemy and it is us."

 

[copake_ham]

.....

Scott, I have to admit it, but if there is picture of a naked woman, I look. I can't help it. If that makes me a sexist creep, so be it.
While I agree that sexist, racist or sexual orientaion comments have no place on APUG, I have yet to see evidence that these are as widespread as you would lead me to believe.

After trying to read through a few pages I was about to give up when I found this post.

Thank you, Dinesh!

First off, I find it amazing that in this day and age some folk (male or female, straight or gay) fail to accept that some women actually LIKE to be sexual and enjoy being attractive and, dare I say it (?) - Ogled!

Any of you folks here ever seen an episode of "Sex in the City"?

There is a stench here of some kind of liberal neo-prudism as if females of the species need to be protected from predatory, ogling men! Almost Victorian in its implications.

B.S.

Humans are sexual beings. Er... that's why we're still here!

Yes, this site is dominated by middle-aged straight men who probably enjoy seeing photos of young nude females. Hence the number of "hits".

And what's so "odd" about that? I mean, what are we dead? Do we have to deny our sexuality and limit ourselves to appreciating landscapes and the like?

Get real, folks. Straight men like seeing pics of young females - and I assume vice versa. I think that's a healthy thing - it means we're still breathing.

To paraphrase George Burns: "The frustration with being Ninety is it becomes like trying to shoot pool with a rope!"