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

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think he means that if he were going to ogle, it would be far cheaper to stop by the local topless bar than to hire models, and require far less effort on his part, and that he spends more time thinking about lighting ratios when looking at a naked woman than about the fact that she's naked.

While all the above assertions are debatable, I'll say that if you want to create successful images with a model, you better be able to stow the johnson after about the first ten seconds that the model is undressed, and stop thinking about them in a sexual way. You do have to do what Ed is describing - convert over to lighting and pose, form and texture. Otherwise you just turn into a "Guy With Camera" trying to find an excuse to get the model nude.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I don't think it's that simple. You certainly don't want to turn into a robot taking pictures of a woman... the best art is created when there is the greatest connection between the artist and the art. To deny ones humanity is to remove the soul of the work. I think the key here is balance. I doubt lighting, pose, form and texture were the ONLY things on Edward Weston's mind. It was his close relationships with his models that allowed him to achieve his results as much as, probably more so, than any technical concerns. Best. Shawn

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

absolutely. But to say it was the relationships with the models that motivated Weston is to both deny and overemphasize the sexual nature of the connection. Yes, he had an intimate repoire with his models. But having shot my fair share of nudes, both with models I've known for a long time, models I've just met, and models I was actually intimate with, the act of photography has to come first during the act of photography. Your sexuality INFORMS but does not control the image-making process. If you're running around during the shoot with a constant hardon, (for guys), then you're distracted from what you're doing.

 

[copake_ham]

This "derivative" thread's topic is:

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

Seems to me that for a photographer, it is "ogling" when Playboy or Penthouse magazine etc. will buy your work. And the "consequences" are that you will be paid good bucks!

Each workday I walk by a couple of dozen newsstands. And each and every one has racks of "girlie mags" with cover photos of provocatively clothed (and unclothed) women prominently on display. Do you think that's maybe because the magazine publishers and the newsstand sellers know that straight men walking down the street "ogle" women?

Exactly what is the big deal here with this thread? And, more fully, this site?

It seems we have to be accepting of displays of the nude male body in order to show our "progressive", "inclusive" open-mindedness. But at the same time, photos of nude females are suspect as being exploitative and a examples of demeaning objectification! If such are posted, it is clear that any commentator should not dare express admiration for the attractiveness and sexuality of the female model! To do so is to be a mere "ogler"

Something's way out of focus here.

And please spare us the "artistic" argument. I'd gamble a dollar to a donut that there isn't a female nude "study" that hasn't already been painted, drawn, photographed etc. before now. Unless you can show new, previously unknown body parts or positions - it's a case of "been there, seen that".

BTW: As a long time NY Times crossword puzzle player - I have to say that this is the greatest use of the word "ogle" I've ever seen in a non-puzzle context!

Oh, and yes, it "ogle" NOT "oogle"! "Oogle is a typo for the websearch site "Google"!

 

[gr82bart]

Believe it or not the topic of 'relationships' between model and photographer frequently gets raised on forums such as Glamour 1, One Model Place, MuseCube and ModelMayhem. The generally accepted accounting practice on this issue that it's a no-no. But, every now and then people will bring up 'famous' photogs whose images were of model that were more than just muses to said photog. My observation is that these types of relationships are most often between 'art' photographers and their models versus glamour/nudie photographers and their models.

Regards, Art.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I have this second hand, but someone on one of the forums mentioned once that he had asked Peter Gowland about what it was like shooting the _Playboy_ centerfolds. I've spoken and exchanged e-mails with Peter Gowland a few times, so I know him to be very approachable and willing to talk about such things, though I never asked him about this in particular--he seems to prefer discussing his cameras. He said that with all the assistants, lights, large format camera and equipment, with the nude model there in the middle, it felt more "like surgery" than anything having to do with sex, though of course the object was to produce a photograph that was all about sex.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

"Your sexuality INFORMS but does not control the image-making process." I never said otherwise, in fact that's just about exactly what I was getting at.

"If you're running around during the shoot with a constant hardon, (for guys), then you're distracted from what you're doing." Give me a break, I didn't imply that and I doubt that's what's happening with most posters here... I knew replying to this BS thread was a bad idea... have at it.

Edit: Reads a little harsh. I would have said that while smiling and shaking my head...

 

[DBP]

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.

I keep having the same problem with television and movie dramas - why is the office too dimly lit for the characters to see the items they are supposedly discussing?

 

[copake_ham]

Believe it or not the topic of 'relationships' between model and photographer frequently gets raised on forums such as Glamour 1, One Model Place, MuseCube and ModelMayhem. The generally accepted accounting practice on this issue that it's a no-no. But, every now and then people will bring up 'famous' photogs whose images were of model that were more than just muses to said photog. My observation is that these types of relationships are most often between 'art' photographers and their models versus glamour/nudie photographers and their models.

Regards, Art.

Art,

You mean relationships like this?

http://www.biblio.com/details.php?dcx=96714729&aid=frg

 

[DrPablo]

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

It wasn't a matter of the question. It was a matter of the tone and the tact. Any question is legit, but sometimes people demean by the way they ask such questions.

 

[DrPablo]

Art without an audience is basically a masturbatory exercise.

So is art with an audience. It's just a masturbatory exercise for exhibitionists.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

"Your sexuality INFORMS but does not control the image-making process." I never said otherwise, in fact that's just about exactly what I was getting at.

"If you're running around during the shoot with a constant hardon, (for guys), then you're distracted from what you're doing." Give me a break, I didn't imply that and I doubt that's what's happening with most posters here... I knew replying to this BS thread was a bad idea... have at it.

Edit: Reads a little harsh. I would have said that while smiling and shaking my head...

Sean-

that was not specifically aimed at you, but it's true. There is a middle ground between robot and horndog. My point was that if you're on the horndog end of the scale, you're sublimating your urge to make porn, and making bad art, or at the robot end, you're sublimating your urge to make art, and making bad porn.

 

[DrPablo]

My point was that if you're on the horndog end of the scale, you're sublimating your urge to make porn, and making bad art, or at the robot end, you're sublimating your urge to make art, and making bad porn.

This is probably the most insightful encapsulation of this issue I've ever read.

 

[copake_ham]

Sean-

that was not specifically aimed at you, but it's true. There is a middle ground between robot and horndog. My point was that if you're on the horndog end of the scale, you're sublimating your urge to make porn, and making bad art, or at the robot end, you're sublimating your urge to make art, and making bad porn.

Leaving aside, of course:

1) No one knows the "truth" and beware of those who claim they do.

2) It's notable that one generation's porn is the next generation's art.
.
3) And, perhaps the most interesting derivative metric from the above equation is that if one's cock is half hard then you are shooting good art.

Of course, this begs the question, what is the measuring gauge for female photographers?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'll leave it up to the women who photograph the nude to answer that with more perspicacity, but it is my impression from the women photographers who shoot the nude that they tend to be less sexually invested in their subject matter than men who do the same. Perhaps it's a wiring issue, but perhaps it's also a question of subject matter- I don't see many women photographing male nudes- they often photograph the female nude as well, and I don't think it's because they're all lesbians either. I think there's this social taboo about shooting the male nude.

 

[Dave Wooten]

So there is a difference between nude model and naked model in the eye of the beholder, the model, and the photographer? And are they all all on the same page during the creation of the image and after observing the finished image?

 

[DrPablo]

Scott, maybe you (or others) can provide some insight into these questions --

Is modeling an art form? Do the models see themselves as artists, or do they see themselves as more like props? Is modeling for a still photo analagous to dance? How much of the art is in the hands of the photographer as opposed to the model?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm on a mailing list for figure models here in the DC area - they definitely see themselves (at least the more professional ones) as being props for the artist to express his/her vision. I would say that they also view modeling as an art form. To me, a good artists model is a tremendous asset - I've tried to work with people before who were very much attractive eye candy to me, but were a disappointing failure as a model because they couldn't take direction, hold a pose, or contribute intellectually to the project. I've also worked with models who didn't do as much for me aesthetically, but were a joy to work with and produced good results because they could assume a pose with minimal direction, were comfortable in a wide variety of poses, could hold a pose long enough for me to focus, compose, load and shoot my 5x7 studio camera, and were able to constructively improvise from a starting pose. In a particularly successful collaboration, it is still primarily the photographer, but the model can be near an equal partner in the work.

 

[Ian Leake]

Scott, maybe you (or others) can provide some insight into these questions --

Is modeling an art form? Do the models see themselves as artists, or do they see themselves as more like props? Is modeling for a still photo analagous to dance? How much of the art is in the hands of the photographer as opposed to the model?

I'd say all of the above. I've worked with several models who are artists in their own right (painters, sculptors, dancers), several who want to be a tool and moulded into artworks, some who want to change their self image, and a few who just want some money (and of course models who are all of those). All bring something unique to the work, especially when we work together multiple times. But at the end of the day it's my photograph, my approach and my style.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Check out jnanian's gallery submission "Water" it is definately a nude, then look at some of his other submissions, some untitled....anyone can tell they are lovely nudes and yet no one oogles.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And now we've got people posting beaver shots in the gallery--

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

 

[Ian Leake]

So there is a difference between nude model and naked model in the eye of the beholder, the model, and the photographer? And are they all all on the same page during the creation of the image and after observing the finished image?

Yes there's a difference between naked and nude, although as in most things artistic, the difference is in the eye of the beholder. The model, photographer and viewer are usually different people so one can expect all to have a different perspective on the finished image.

Is Modigliani's Reclining Nude on Red Couch a visionary work of art, soft porn for the boys, or just pointless wierd stuff? And is the model naked or nude? Ask a different person and you'll probably get a different answer.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Yes there's a difference between naked and nude, although as in most things artistic, the difference is in the eye of the beholder. The model, photographer and viewer are usually different people so one can expect all to have a different perspective on the finished image.

Is Modigliani's Reclining Nude on Red Couch a visionary work of art, soft porn for the boys, or just pointless wierd stuff? And is the model naked or nude? Ask a different person and you'll probably get a different answer.

And in my not so humble opinion, Ian, that about sums it up.

 

[Jon King]

And now we've got people posting beaver shots in the gallery--

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

lmfao.. thanks for the laugh, David. I think most people who made the mistake I did and responded to this thread realize that all the various viewpoints expressed are probably far closer than it seems online. If we could just sit and talk face to face.. I think most if not all posters here 'get it'... it is just very difficult to get complex viewpoints across with words alone. The good comments here are excellent, and I commend the posters for their ability to get their thoughts across clearly. I'll get there someday, I hope.

 

[Ian Leake]

I think most people who made the mistake I did and responded to this thread realize that all the various viewpoints expressed are probably far closer than it seems online. If we could just sit and talk face to face.. I think most if not all posters here 'get it'... it is just very difficult to get complex viewpoints across with words alone. The good comments here are excellent, and I commend the posters for their ability to get their thoughts across clearly. I'll get there someday, I hope.

We all have our own baggage that influences our personal outlook on life. Vigorous debate often adds to that baggage and hence may change our outlook, but as often as not it's a temporary change not a sustained one. Hammering home a "my way is right, your way is wrong" argument, the tactic of the playground bully, rarely has positive benefits.

I'm reminded of a quote from a 19th century politician that went something along the lines of: "More people will improve themselves through flattery than through the lash."