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

[wfwhitaker]

...Hence the number of "hits"...

Shouldn't that "h" be a "t"?

 

[Jon King]

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!

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.

If all you want to ogle pretty women, isn't 99% of the internet really a much better place for that?

If you want to talk digital photography, isn't 99% of the internet really much better for that too?

APUG and most of it's members, I think and hope, have a bit more going for them that than that 99%.

I do hope the photographers posting nudes are trying to explore and improve their skills with the tough subject of the human body and aren't trying to take nudie shots for middle age men to drool over. The rest of the internet really does a fine job with that.

Immature comments are made here... just sort the gallery over the last bit months by views, look for 5 minutes and you can find a couple. Many good comments too, certainly. Would any of you guys go to an art gallery and give each other a 'wink, wink' if you came across a nude photo or painting? I sort of doubt it. Why do it here? The posters may think it is witty or clever, but it really comes across as childish.

I don't think that most people who disagree with you George are guilty of near-Victorian neo-prudism, but rather they can successfully put a bit of distance between their biological reaction to a naked human body and their thoughts of the body as an art object. There's a place to express each of those feelings on the internet.

Jon

 

[Ed Sukach]

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!!!

Yes, I meant GRACE. It is the closest definition I can think of to describe that wonderful, awesome, miraculous transformation.

As for the rest ... I disagree, intensely. That would NOT happen.

 

[copake_ham]

If all you want to ogle pretty women, isn't 99% of the internet really a much better place for that?

If you want to talk digital photography, isn't 99% of the internet really much better for that too?

APUG and most of it's members, I think and hope, have a bit more going for them that than that 99%.

I do hope the photographers posting nudes are trying to explore and improve their skills with the tough subject of the human body and aren't trying to take nudie shots for middle age men to drool over. The rest of the internet really does a fine job with that.

Immature comments are made here... just sort the gallery over the last bit months by views, look for 5 minutes and you can find a couple. Many good comments too, certainly. Would any of you guys go to an art gallery and give each other a 'wink, wink' if you came across a nude photo or painting? I sort of doubt it. Why do it here? The posters may think it is witty or clever, but it really comes across as childish.

I don't think that most people who disagree with you George are guilty of near-Victorian neo-prudism, but rather they can successfully put a bit of distance between their biological reaction to a naked human body and their thoughts of the body as an art object. There's a place to express each of those feelings on the internet.

Jon

Well, Jon, you'd have a point except that....as I said way back around page two or three, I've never actually searched the site for nudes in the nearly two years I've been here. Oh, and my own Gallery posts are mostly those damned landscapes! And they include no nudes, whatsoever.

So, yes, I'm not a neo-Victorian liberal prude. Nor am I a purient searcher of web-based pornography. You seem to know a lot more about that component of the web than I do.

Quite frankly, I think a lot of the commentary on this thread is dominated by about a half dozen posters who seem to be convinced that there is a "problem" based on their own personal sensibilities. It's an ongoing debate that has now "warped" from last November's penis-exposure debacle to this female objectification rant. A kind of liberal free-for-all wherein when I want to be "progressive" it's okay; but I can also be a prude when I choose otherwise.

 

[Scott Peters]

What boob started this thread?

 

[Jon King]

Well, Jon, you'd have a point except that....as I said way back around page two or three, I've never actually searched the site for nudes in the nearly two years I've been here. Oh, and my own Gallery posts are mostly those damned landscapes! And they include no nudes, whatsoever.

George, the point I was making actually had nothing to do with you, just your comments.

So, yes, I'm not a neo-Victorian liberal prude. Nor am I a purient searcher of web-based pornography. You seem to know a lot more about that component of the web than I do.

Cute, George. Try leaving the day job at work. btw... "purient"?

 

[Removed Account]

When will this be moved to the soapbox? I understand the original point was a discussion of ethics, but the thread to seems to be degenerating in to an argument accompanied by thinly veiled personal insults, and not showing much hope for improvement.

- Justin

 

[Vaughn]

Weighing in late, but I will agree with Flyingcamera and a few others that there have been some remarks made here that can be called "sexist". I am not surprised, considering the number of people we have here -- and the diversity of the people we have (even the white middle-aged male group here is quite diverse).

Most of the sexist remarks were not mean-spirited...which does not excuse them, but gives us hope that with a little foresight and knowledge on how that type of comment affects others, such comments will become more rare.

But with such a diversity of members, how does one find a set of values that can be agree upon? The moderators can handle the extremes, but should not be expected to be values police and decide to what degree a comment is sexist.

So what to do? Conversations such as this one helps. I am sure it will come up again. The other way to help is to apply some thought to the issue, and decide on how to apply it to one's own posts...and the best way to respond to sexist posts. Sometimes no response speaks loudly.

Many here will be insensitive to sexist remarks -- they are not personally affected by them and can not see anything wrong with them. Hopefully, most of them will refrain from make sexist comments out of thoughfulness of others.

Those who are very sensitive to sexist remarks hopefully will also realize that this is a cross-section of the photography world...and that there will always people with different values...and be somewhat tolerant of them. The small minority that make such sexist remarks should not be used to judge the forum as a whole.

Vaughn

 

[gr82bart]

I am trying to capture that GRACE.

Umm ... sure Ed.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

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.

Ditto.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

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.

You realize this is too simple and elegant a solution for APUGers?

I was even going to add that if you see something sexist report it to the Council or the Mods, but I think posting public threads about it add to more popcorn eating, myself. <-- Ok that was a low blow, but I need my daily entertainment!

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

Hey folks?

Can we get back to shooting images on film again?

Thanks, Art. (And stop that ogling you bad, naughty boy ...)

 

[Ed Sukach]

Umm ... sure Ed.
Regards, Art.

My sarcasm meter just went off. Whether or not it needs to be calibrated...?

The subject of choosing to photograph women "fabric free" is not easily articulated. I can, in all honesty, say that the "capture of grace" is my prime motivation. There are usually a myriad of other emotional stimuli involved, but these are minor - really minor, in comparison.

Not all of us are driven by the reptilian section of our brain - Id if you will.

I wonder - does this sound "odd" or "strange" to you? If so, I've succeeded in some small way. Odd and Strange are desirable characteristics in photography.

BTW - If memory serves me, you have produced some really *fine* nude works. What is your motivation?

 

[gr82bart]

Ed,

I think you and I had a discussion about this a long time ago and I remember I mentioned to you then: you're overthinking this. Enjoy what you're doing, keep at it and don't worry about putzes like me and my snide remarks.

Regards, Art.

 

[ben-s]

Hey folks?

Can we get back to shooting images on film again?

Well said, Art - Why can't we all respect each other, and each other's views?

Since this is obviously a contentious issue, maybe Sean could implement a "potentially offensive" tag?
Then people could opt not to see those images so tagged...

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,
I think you and I had a discussion about this a long time ago and I remember I mentioned to you then: you're overthinking this. Enjoy what you're doing, keep at it and don't worry about putzes like me and my snide remarks.
Regards, Art.

I think we've met before, briefly, at the Brush Gallery.

You are definitely NOT a "putz" - not even a little bit.
Possibly - "Angina in the Gluteus Maximus"?? - but then, aren't we all at one time or another?

"Overthinking"? I have to do something while the JOBO temperature stabilizes.

Hmmm... "Motivation" - might be a good topic for another thread..???

 

[gr82bart]

I just went and looked. Sanders's images have had just under 4000 viewings and 92 comments.

Those aren't the images. He deleted the ones people are talking about a while ago.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

You are definitely NOT a "putz" - not even a little bit.

Well, I'm not far from the peanut gallery either.

Hmmm... "Motivation" - might be a good topic for another thread..???

Well, you're certainly a glutton for punishment.

Regards, Art.

 

[catem]

Well (sorry, haven't read all the replies to this thread) I thought it was a bit sad when, some time ago, I posted a thread discussing the work of Melanie Manchot - who has done various portraits of her (ageing) mother. O.K. so maybe some of her photographs didn't translate so well to little digital images, but I felt there was quite a lot of dislike for the pictures (some of them nudes) even disgust. It upset me.

The human body is beautiful and fascinating, it doesn't surprise me it's a subject for art and photography.

I understand where Scott is coming from, it's a question of language and perception and priority - and the key is "the human body" - the symbolism of nakedness, and beauty, isn't always female, skinny, boobs, youth; - shock horror - male bodies and ageing bodies can also have sexuality, and can be, as images, 'objects' to which we can relate as subjects (not necessarily at all in a harmful or disrespectful way - but I think men are very wary of the possibility of being objectified, and very loth to be seen, rather than be the seer).

It can feel a bit lonely when the language spoken and overall perception is overwhelmingly heterosexual male.

Not sure what's to be done . Except a little awareness that it's not the only way....

 

[Dinesh]

..... but I felt there was quite a lot of dislike for the pictures (some of them nudes) even disgust. It upset me

I cannot seem to find the quotes you are referring to. Can you please direct me.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

After reading through almost this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that my avatar is not nude enough.

- CJ

 

[copake_ham]

After reading through almost this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that my avatar is not nude enough.

- CJ

Do as you feel you must - but I'm not undressing mine - she's a classic!

 

[Roger Hicks]

After reading through almost this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that my avatar is not nude enough.

- CJ

Dear Cheryl,

Promises! Promises!

Seriously, I can't even figure who is arguing what point with whom.

1a Some people find some nudes erotic but

1b Some genuinely don't and

1c Others pretend they don't and

1d Yet others are worried in case some people (1a)


2a This is a bad thing or

2b This is a good thing or

2c It doesn't matter very much


I'll go for 1a, 2c. Maybe we should have a poll.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jstraw]

I hadn't realized that Sanders had removed his nude portraiture. What a shame. I thought he was doing something with merit. Were they sexy pictures? Yep. They had something to say about the sexiness of a broad range women. They were not a narrowly defined group of glamour models. But beyond that, they seemed to have plenty to say about the relationship between the women and being naked for the camera. As discussed, that sort of "reading" of expressions and body language is problematic. But I found depth in them...and sexiness. I saw the sorts of women being presented as beautiful that are not often singled out for that type of depiction in the broader culture.

I responded to both the photography and the women and I have a very hard time seeing this as a bad thing.

 

[SuzanneR]

I cannot seem to find the quotes you are referring to. Can you please direct me.

Dinesh....
I think this is the thread Cate is referring to...

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