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

[jstraw]

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

I'd go further than "many" but I'm in complete agreement. To the extent that there were inappropriate comments, blaming the artist for them is just not right.

 

[Jim Noel]

What happened to Sanders is exactly the reason I do not post images on any web site. Most of my work doesn't include figure studies, but when I choose to make these photographs I just show them in climates where the excessively prudish among us have no way to vent their spleen.

The human body is a thing of beauty, and has been thus depicted throughout the history of art. Of course there have also been the obscene depictions throughout history. It is each persons right to make or view either type of image as they see fit.

I don't believe they should have to suffer the wrath of others for doing either.

 

[catem]

For you, Cate...

Cynosure

R.

C(ss)aynomore...

Cordially,

C.

 

[catem]

Seriously (couple of serious posts crept in whilst I was being flippant)

It's a pity that anyone should feel obliged to remove their images. I had no idea Sanders had removed his as I rarely get to visit the gallery these days (time constraints rather than any other reason)& when I do there I too many to catch up with. Quite curious about Helen's aswell.

 

[MattKing]

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

Helen:

Was the furore because they were in colour?

Matt

 

[wfe]

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.

In my opinion discussions and or comments about photographs or photography that cause folks to remove their work represents a devolving of the community to something other than its intended purpose, which I find quite disappointing.

My philosophy is that if someone is passionate about what they do and work hard at it then the work is meaningful and good. I may not personally like or enjoy the work but I respect it along with their beliefs and efforts and I will give it the same consideration as any other work.

Bill

 

[DrPablo]

If I recall correctly the harshest comments that Sanders received were accusing his series of pointlessness -- they weren't prudish or, by contrast, carnal. But they kind of trivialized a very substantial effort on his part.

That I find bothersome. I mean what's the point of taking a picture of a flower or a bird? They're both naked too. When we start questioning the point of art, we're missing the point of art altogether.

 

[jd callow]

If I recall correctly the harshest comments that Sanders received were accusing his series of pointlessness -- they weren't prudish or, by contrast, carnal. But they kind of trivialized a very substantial effort on his part.

That I find bothersome. I mean what's the point of taking a picture of a flower or a bird? They're both naked too. When we start questioning the point of art, we're missing the point of art altogether.

Sanders posted his work in the critique section and I really don't think he received many critiques nor were those that he did receive very harsh.

In my opinion asking 'why' is very legitimate if not required.

 

[catem]

Helen:

Was the furore because they were in colour?

Matt

Either that or because they were tissues...

 

[gr82bart]

<snip> how many of you remember the furore that erupted when I posted a series of pictures of tissue boxes in colour?

Your sh*****g me? WTF!

Regards, Art.

 

[Removed Account]

Those who were bothered by that may need a tissue for their issues... (sorry Roger )

- Justin

 

[gr82bart]

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

Agreed.

I have always maintained that I do photography for me not for the viewer. Which is in part why I do not show my work too often.

Regards, Art.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I do mine for me first, and the audience doesn't influence what I take, but I'm always interested in having an audience. It's a way to create a dialog, without which there isn't much point in artwork. Art without an audience is basically a masturbatory exercise.

 

[gr82bart]

Art without an audience is basically a masturbatory exercise.

Well masturbation can be pleasurable too, you know?

At least you didn't accuse me of cowardice like others have. Where's the "Why are photographers are mean" thread?

I find it rather annoying again that people insist art MUST be shown. Why? Who says? Where's the stone tablet?

Regards, Art.

 

[wfe]

I do mine for me first, and the audience doesn't influence what I take, but I'm always interested in having an audience. It's a way to create a dialog, without which there isn't much point in artwork. Art without an audience is basically a masturbatory exercise.

Scott,
I both agree and disagree with you on this. I gain tremendous personal reward, sense of accomplishment and joy with my work even if no one sees it but I do also enjoy sharing, showing it and listening to the reactions and responses from the audience.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[patrickjames]

I see a lot of rationalization about the reasons for nude photographs. I am not sure what happened to Sanders, but as an example, if you put photographs on the internet you have to expect people to have differing opinions about them. You can't expect validation for what you are doing. I used to have nudes here, but then I decided to delete them, and also the rest of the images I had posted. As Jim Noel stated above, I think they would be better in a more protected environment, and in the end I don't really care what others on the internet think. I have friends whose honest opinions I can trust.

One of my biggest problems with male photographers who do nudes is the disingenuousness of their intentions. I have an acquaintance who does nudes who I respect because he is open about why he does what he does. He doesn't try to hide behind the "art" moniker to justify seeing women naked.

In the end the images will speak for themselves. The intention behind photographs will always show itself.

I find it funny sometimes to read comments on the nudes that people post. The Sanders images were like crack to some people here. It was obvious they were enthralled by the nakedness and their comments showed it. The comments seem to have nothing to do with the images, but everything to do with the women in them.

Scott's famous post was more disturbing to me, not because of the image, but because of the reaction to it. I didn't understand why people reacted so negatively to it. I thought there was a lot of hypocrisy in that episode.

Patrick

 

[gr82bart]

<snip> if you put photographs on the internet you have to expect people to have differing opinions about them.

Like this: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Regards, Art.

 

[patrickjames]

I have seen that post before Art and, although I am sure it was made in jest, it does ring true. I have a general principle in life that if you want to improve at something you need to ask advice from those better than yourself.

I also realized a long time ago that the only people who really know if you are good or not are the ones better than you.

Patrick

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Patrick-

at the same time, you need to be very careful about accepting critiques - that satire shows the folly of listening to those who only THINK they're better than you.

 

[jstraw]

I see a lot of rationalization about the reasons for nude photographs.

One of my biggest problems with male photographers who do nudes is the disingenuousness of their intentions.

The intention behind photographs will always show itself.

You possess a clairvoyance I lack, sir.

 

[patrickjames]

Patrick-

at the same time, you need to be very careful about accepting critiques - that satire shows the folly of listening to those who only THINK they're better than you.

Scott, that is why I only ask for critiques from people I respect, not just anyone.

Patrick

 

[Ed Sukach]

One last thought...

Since I've been involved with art I have absorbed one trait - cheapness.

There is a venue for those who would "ogle" -- it is in the nearby "Nudie Bar".

I would not have to work as hard as I do in the Studio, either physically or mentally; I would not have additional processing to look forward to after the session. I could relax and enjoy a couple of brews (albeit overpriced). The only extra would be two or three, or five, dollar bills... All for FAR less money than the modeling fees in my studio.

I haven't attended one of those T- Bars in years ... All I seem to do is visualize where the main and fill should be ... exposure ratios ...

You can take the photographer out of the "Studio"; it is far more difficult to take the Studio out of the photographer.

 

[gr82bart]

Ed,

I'm confused.

Are you saying you've found a way to ogle at women cheaply? Under the guise of photography?

Or ...

Are you saying you've found an alternative to the nudie bar that you much more prefer. Again, under the guise of photography and modeling fees?

Regards, Art.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Ed's not saying either. Try again.

 

[gr82bart]

Ed's not saying either. Try again.

I know. Just kidding with Ed.

Regards, Art.