Well, the students share the same model and set-up. What did you expect? I would hope to see a multitude of styles of drawing/painting of those same models.Go to a professional portfolio, and see 100 hundred images of 50 naked women in the same two poses, with the same props. One starts to wonder..
The hypocrisy and fancy terms to define a photograph usually comes out in proportion to how dumb, stupid, banal, redundant, poorly executed the photo is. meaning, the worse it is, the more fancy terms will be used to make it "art"I do photograph nudes. I agree with Koraks and find that there's a lot of hypocrisy and double standards around nude photography. One can admire a photograph of a landscape just for what it is; a photo of a nice landscape or a nice photo of a landscape and that seems okay. But if there's nudity involved, then one has to come up with artsy, lofty, philosophical explanations/justifications. It has to be at an elevated level and be considered art. Otherwise there will be critics with terms like leaching, stereotype, objectification, the male gaze etc. Apparently one cannot enjoy a photo of a nude person just because it's a nice photo or a nice looking person. There's a lot of nice, interesting, artistic and boring, nondescript, mediocre photography of any subject and genre. And people label any of this work "fine art" just the same. So in that sense, there's really no difference whether there's nudity in a photo or not. It's just that the judging is very different. Some comments in this thread show that once more.
I found that photographing nudes and programming in either machine code or assembly language is best done by someone other than me.
That covered everything I was thinking about.
Start looking at photographs by Weston, Ruth Bernhard and others -- light and form. And drawings...perhaps line drawings, too. Find some good poses and lighting, and work with them as a starting point. Avoid or limit cutting off body parts (photographically) at first.
We might need some examples in this thread.
Seriously.
Friedlander's nudes are definitely unconventional. They remind me in many ways of some of Bill Brandt's nudes.I might suggest looking at the collection of nudes by Lee Friedlander. They are rather unconventional, and in no way obviously erotic, but they might help free you from...convention.
Thinking of which, I now own a trio of his nudes. The frames are arriving shortly and will go up on the wall in the stairway gallery. I'll post a shot of the gallery once they're hung.When I finally buy a nudes book... it's definitely going to be a George Platt Lynes book.
Thinking of which, I now own a trio of his nudes. The frames are arriving shortly and will go up on the wall in the stairway gallery. I'll post a shot of the gallery once they're hung.
Thinking of which, I now own a trio of his nudes. The frames are arriving shortly and will go up on the wall in the stairway gallery. I'll post a shot of the gallery once they're hung.
As in estate prints on fiber paper from the original negatives. All three are contact prints from 8x10 negatives.As in original's, or reprints?
They will be hung well on the wall... (I've got 12x15 white wood box frames, 8ply mats). No worries about delicate sensibilities though- there's no winkies on display in any of the three. The ones they had at the auction that were frontal nudes went for WAY more money than I could afford.Will they be well hung?
As in estate prints on fiber paper from the original negatives. All three are contact prints from 8x10 negatives.
A combination of patience and the right online estate auctions. I've found some stellar deals that way on things. I got my big Voigtlander Petzval from 1863 that way, in a package deal with my Cooke Series II (because the auction house was too lazy to clean them and too lazy to do a basic google search, I got the Voigtlander and the Cooke for $225 with shipping. When that particular auction house has large format gear, they often mis-describe it or under-describe it, so bargains are to be had for anything that doesn't have immediate brand recognition (for example, Deardorff 8x10 cameras sell at market prices, as do Leicas- if anything, the Leica stuff can go high). I also got a painting that way - they were too lazy to read the artist's signature, so I got a $3000 painting for $300. But you roll the dice - you can go months on end without seeing anything worthwhile, and then get slammed back-to-back with enough great bargains you have to make choices.How do you buy something like that? I want one... or 7.
A combination of patience and the right online estate auctions. I've found some stellar deals that way on things. I got my big Voigtlander Petzval from 1863 that way, in a package deal with my Cooke Series II (because the auction house was too lazy to clean them and too lazy to do a basic google search, I got the Voigtlander and the Cooke for $225 with shipping. When that particular auction house has large format gear, they often mis-describe it or under-describe it, so bargains are to be had for anything that doesn't have immediate brand recognition (for example, Deardorff 8x10 cameras sell at market prices, as do Leicas- if anything, the Leica stuff can go high). I also got a painting that way - they were too lazy to read the artist's signature, so I got a $3000 painting for $300. But you roll the dice - you can go months on end without seeing anything worthwhile, and then get slammed back-to-back with enough great bargains you have to make choices.
hunh... well looky there. Mapplethorpe. Now I just need to prostitute hard, mortgage the boat, sell the truck, and win a few scratch off's to afford it.
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auc...years-of-sothebys-photographs-2/self-portrait
No, in this case, the "estate" means that it came from the George Platt Lynes estate that was donated to a public collection. These prints are "work prints" in that they're not signed or numbered, but they were definitely made in his studio/darkroom, and they're vintage prints (you can tell from the paper). The term "estate print" has a specific meaning in the fine art world - it's a print that may have been made posthumously from the artist's negatives, so they aren't considered as 'authoritative' as a vintage print, but they still have collectible value.So you're literally buying estates of other collectors, not directly from the estate of the artist. Great, you get me all fluffed up and then just walk away. Nice.
No, in this case, the "estate" means that it came from the George Platt Lynes estate that was donated to a public collection. These prints are "work prints" in that they're not signed or numbered, but they were definitely made in his studio/darkroom, and they're vintage prints (you can tell from the paper). The term "estate print" has a specific meaning in the fine art world - it's a print that may have been made posthumously from the artist's negatives, so they aren't considered as 'authoritative' as a vintage print, but they still have collectible value.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?