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

[gr82bart]

Here we are again - bunch of guys talking about the naked female body. Boys will be boys.

Regards, Art.

 

[Ian Leake]

Here we are again - bunch of guys talking about the naked female body. Boys will be boys.

Regards, Art.

Why does it suprise you that I talk about the body Art? That's what I take photos of. And if you actually read what I said, I'm not sure I specifically refer to women at all. And if you actually read what was posted on the last two pages you'd find the only reference to women was with regard to women photographers.

I've worked with both females and males. Although I have a sexual preference for women, and prefer working with them, I don't see why that should preclude me from working with the men. So as far I'm concerned my comments are not gender-specific.

So how about laying off the puerile remarks and stop trolling.

 

[gr82bart]

Ian,

[Oiy]
Just because I posted after you in this thread, doesn't mean I was responding to you.
[/Sigh]

Regards, Art.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

The impression conflates nakedness with sexuality --
a commonplace in this thread and in gallery comments.

 

[gr82bart]

The impression conflates nakedness with sexuality --
a commonplace in this thread and in gallery comments.

Biblical, ain't it?

Regards, Art.

 

[Ian Leake]

Ian,

[Oiy]
Just because I posted after you in this thread, doesn't mean I was responding to you.
[/Sigh]

Regards, Art.

Whether you were responding to me specifically or not is beside the point. If I took photos of trees or waterfalls then you'd expect me to talk about them passionately. And you'd expect people who enjoy looking at my photos to talk about them too.

Art, I have the greatest respect for your photographic skills, but our world outlooks are very different. My world outlook tells me that you're childish; from your earlier posts I presume yours tells you that I'm delusional or sex-obsessed or whatever. I really don't care what you think, but I really do care about being able to have a conversation with other grown ups without snide and childish comments being hurled in from the sidelines.

 

[gr82bart]

OMFG Ian. Up until this exchange I had absolutely no opinion or presumption of you at all. I hate to break it to you Ian, but the inetrnet is one big peanut gallery.

Regards, Art.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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.

I'm done with the discussion but had to give you props for that! Pretty funny stuff. Shawn

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The impression conflates nakedness with sexuality --
a commonplace in this thread and in gallery comments.

Sanders-

That was in part what I was saying in my comment about the need to de-sexualize yourself before photographing the nude. If you're walking around the studio or the landscape or the wherever you're photographing the nude horny, your mind is not on what you're doing - creating photographs. You're either sublimating your desire to jump the model by putting the camera in the way, or you're fouling up your photos because you're thinking with your lower brain.

Of course, we have no way of knowing beyond what written documentation folks like Weston and Stieglitz left behind if the act of photographing their significant others in the nude was bracketed on either end by sexual activity. However, as someone who has photographed a significant other in the nude before, the act of photographing was usually separated in time from romantic activity. When you are that intimate with someone, you have enough repoire with them you don't need to view their nudity as sexual - do you jump your wife every time she gets out of the shower and you're brushing your teeth at the sink? Do you get aroused EVERY TIME your husband gets dressed in the morning? Of course not.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Further thoughts:

In thinking about the last time I visited a Naked Woman Bar. I realized that the participants there - and they were there for the express purpose of "being ogled Hustler style - wide open" - STILL exhibited that magical transformation to "grace"-fullness". Possibly, that vision is the product of some sort of mindset, unique to me - although I doubt it. Discovering that part of my vision took one hell of long time ... and the process of self-discovery - as frightening as it is - continues.

Again, I am not a robot, in the Studio or not. Capturing that sense of "grace" is by far, my predominant motivation. At the same time, I am certainly not free from all the human emotional responses associated with it.

Is there a "relationship" between the photographer and the model"? Of course! When we pass people on the street, there is some sort of "relationship".
What KIND of relationship? I cannot answer for others, but...

I do NOT fool around with models - and yes, I do think that modeling IS an art - and an HONORABLE profession. I'll estimate that 90% of the success of a particular work is "caused" by the model: 90% of the failure is "caused" by me.

I would rather jump off a high bridge than "fool around" with a model working WITH (never "for") me:

1. Equally "thrilling".

2. Takes FAR less time.

3. Requires FAR less effort.

4. Costs a LOT less.

- And either way, you will wind up in the same place, with the same effect.

 

[copake_ham]

Editorial in today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thu4.html

The anti-oglers here may want to contact Councilman Vallone and sign on to his crusade.

But remember, for every ogler there's an equal and opposite exhibitionist!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

George- the problem there is that the ogling is non-consensual at worst, and consent-indeterminable at best. How CAN you determine whether the woman wearing no panties walking down the stairs is in fact willingly exposing herself? Maybe she got sick, soiled her drawers, and is on her way home? Maybe she's Paris Hilton and doesn't give a damn. Unless you ask her point-blank, you've got no way to tell. On the other hand, unless you observe someone staking out a spot under the stairs for hours, how can you prove they had voyeuristic intent? The problem is that voyeurism (as highlighted in that article) is a form of public exercise of sexual activity which IS inappropriate. If you're in your apartment and parade naked in front of the windows, that's your own damn fault if someone watches you. And if you're peeping through a telescope at the apartment three blocks down the street, also from the privacy of your own home, well, no harm no foul. You can drop trou and pleasure yourself and nobody is the wiser.

If someone goes parading around New York City wearing naught but a butt-floss thong and a cockatoo on their head, and they complain that people are staring, then they deserve no sympathy. On the flip side, exiting ones home in a normal mode of attire would suggest that one is not giving express consent to be stared at and turned into a sexual object by someone NOT of your choosing.

 

[Ian Leake]

Scott - I think your continuum from horndog to robot is spot on. Of course every photographer (and painter, drawer, sculptor, etc.) who works with nudes will be in a slightly different place, as will every model. I suspect that most creative time is when both model and photographer are in the same place.

As an aside, and if I remember correctly, Charis said in her memoirs that she jumped Edward on their second sitting (I'm sure she said it more delicately than I've just done though). There's nothing wrong with having a relationship with your model - it's happened throughout the ages and will undoubtedly continue. But I think there's everything wrong with treating your model in a way that suggests that a relationship may be even a remote possibility for three reasons: (1) it's highly disrespectful and breaks the bond of trust that must exist between photographer and model; (2) it's delusional; and (3) it makes it impossible to concentrate on your shared work.

I think I'm saying exactly the same as you are but with different words...

 

[Ian Leake]

...and agreed - non-consensual ogling is antisocial, even if it's impossible to legislate against or enforce evenly. Laws like this are usually only enforced against people the cops don't like...

 

[gr82bart]

Maybe she's Paris Hilton and doesn't give a damn.

LOL I wish more women were like her <--bad boy, must keep juvenile straight man locker room thoughts to myself ...

If someone goes parading around New York City wearing naught but a butt-floss thong and a cockatoo on their head, and they complain that people are staring, then they deserve no sympathy.

I am going to assume it would be OK to make sophmoric remarks vis a vis a men's locker room too? Or is that not OK but staring/ogling is?*

Hmmm ... thinking about this a bit more. So then, if it's deemed OK to stare/ogle in this situation, then why is not OK to stare/ogle in the APUG gallery?*

Isn't the complaint is usually about whether they are allowed to leave the house with said clothing (or lack thereof); whether that is offensive to others. The 'community standards' thing. Usually not from the person leaving the house. And not from those staring/ogling either, but the one's worried about those staring/ogling. I think it was Roger's option 1d.

Regards, Art.

 

[gr82bart]

I would rather jump off a high bridge than "fool around" with a model working WITH (never "for") me:

1. Equally "thrilling".
2. Takes FAR less time.
3. Requires FAR less effort.
4. Costs a LOT less.

- And either way, you will wind up in the same place, with the same effect.

Ed,

I got to print this out and show this to my GF and 3 of my ex's. All of them being models or were. They'll get a kick out of it.

What if you like jumping off the bridge more than once?*

Regards, Art.

 

[Ed Sukach]

What if you like jumping off the bridge more than once?*

I have no idea. The first time hasn't happened - either case - yet.

 

[copake_ham]

...and agreed - non-consensual ogling is antisocial, even if it's impossible to legislate against or enforce evenly. Laws like this are usually only enforced against people the cops don't like...

Just as laws against exhibitionism are also selectively enforced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html

 

[patrickjames]

Part of me is wondering if this thread is getting this long because we are in the US (most of us) with all of our puritan/religious baggage.

I say ogle away, but keep your dumb a$$ comments to yourself.

Patrick

 

[noblebeast]

...I say ogle away, but keep your dumb a$$ comments to yourself.

Patrick

But what about people who like to ogle dumb a$$es?

Joe

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Who has more issues, people who like to photograph nudes, or people who like to talk (and talk and talk) about them?

 

[JBrunner]

Part of me is wondering if this thread is getting this long because we are in the US (most of us) with all of our puritan/religious baggage.

I say ogle away, but keep your dumb a$$ comments to yourself.

Patrick

I have been following this thread, and I can't say i feel puritanical leanings have entered in to it. I think the "oggling" comments under discussion are more about an immature aproach to nudity and sexuality, instead of a moral reaction to a percieved "dirty" picture. I've seen that too, but those are easy to recognize, because they equate nudity with sexuality, and nothing more, either way.

 

[JBrunner]

Who has more issues, people who like to photograph nudes, or people who like to talk (and talk and talk) about them?

I say the person who worries about such things, has more issues that the first two groups.

 

[jstraw]

I'm pondering whether maturity dictates some sort of appreciation of nude photography that is somehow blind to the relative beauty of the subject of the photograph.

It seems absurd to me.

 

[JBrunner]

I'm pondering whether maturity dictates some sort of appreciation of nude photography that is somehow blind to the relative beauty of the subject of the photograph.

It seems absurd to me.

I'm not getting what you mean, Micheal, could you elaborate a bit?