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

[Ed Sukach]

Dear Cheryl,

Promises! Promises!

I agree!

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....

Yes.

I agree here as well - completely.

I'd choose 1(d).

 

[light leak]

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.

 

[gr82bart]

Maybe we should have a poll.

My choice is 3: :munch: In the nude, of course.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

I hadn't realized that Sanders had removed his nude portraiture. What a shame.

I agree. I think he's left APUG too; not sure.

Regards, Art.

 

[naturephoto1]

I agree. I think he's left APUG too; not sure.

Regards, Art.

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

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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]

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.

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

 

[jstraw]

I don't either and I'm still shaking my head over the beating Scott took too.

 

[light leak]

Nobody should be taking a beating for simply honing their craft on subject matter that is important to them.

 

[naturephoto1]

Nobody should be taking a beating for simply honing their craft on subject matter that is important to them.

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]

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

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

 

[JBrunner]

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

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.

 

[naturephoto1]

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, wether I comment, or not.

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]

I've never seen a photograph where I thought the photographers intent was for men to oogle the model.

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]

...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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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.

 

[jd callow]

nooooo don't say the 'C' word!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Which C-word? Committed? Communist? Crabby? Commentary?

 

[Andy K]

There is no way to control the perception of and reaction to a photograph. So why bother trying?

 

[catem]

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]

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]

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?)

For you, Cate...

Cynosure

R.

 

[Craig]

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.

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't see anything that would cause a furore in that picture. Am I missing something?