Let’s talk nude.

[koraks]

Yes, I can get behind that, @paulbarden . It doesn't have to be art, and if it isn't, it doesn't make sense to call it that either. At best, it's hubris, at worst, it's trying to sugarcoat something that might be dubious in an ethical sense.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't photographs nudes, as I would not know what to do, but I do appreciate it when it is done well. I like some of the work of Bill Brandt, and Kertesz's distortions...especially the abstract ones.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

'Nudes' are quite prominent in my own photography. I'd say that I spend at least half the time I can dedicate to photography on nudes, which would fall mostly in the middle category of the three that @TheFlyingCamera defined (and that I think have some face validity, although that division is a bit of a simplification): it's mostly erotica, some of it perhaps moves a bit towards art, some of it tends more towards porn, although it's mostly and very deliberately (!) positioned pretty much somewhere in between those two. Making porn has never much appealed to me due to its conceptual flatness, neither has making 'pure' art where the nude is more often than not stripped of its inherent erotic charge. This is not to say that I dislike either of those categories or consider them as inferior. They're just not my cup of tea when it comes to making them. I can, and do, enjoy appealing art that features nudity, and likewise for good porn - although I'm sad to say, I couldn't give many examples of pornographic images that I'd consider really successful in the sense of being effective in its intent as well as aesthetically pleasing. I suppose the more talented porn photographers are snowed under in the mass of run-off-the-mill 'explicit imagery manufacturers'. So that's where I stand, and that's what may help in interpreting what I'd like to say about the topic.

'Nude' just doesn't say much; there are many dimensions to a photograph that happens to have 'people with less clothes than normal' in them. There are many approaches to all these dimensions, and they stretch far beyond the simplistic dichotomy hinted at above that confuses several of these dimensions. Neither am I happy with the sentiment that shines through in some posts that 'art' is somehow superior to other approaches to nudes. If art is your goal; fine, define for yourself what you believe art is and start making it. But there are other motivations for 'doing nudes', and if they are viable/defensible/permissible is an ethical question that is very difficult (and I'd say impossible) to categorically determine based on the image alone. If art is more valuable than any other form of depicting a (partly) naked body is equally impossible to say just like that.

So I think my message in considering nude photography is to really break the concept down into specific dimensions and determine where you (want to) stand with respect to each of them. Many of them have popped up already in this thread. Think of the intent of the image, which can be to convey a feeling or a more conceptual message, or it may just want to be aesthetically pleasing and explore a certain form, geometry or graphical archetype. There's the interest in the human form, or the interest in form, shape and light in general, leading to a more graphical approach or compositional choices. There may be an interest in human relationships and also sexuality, or an interest in capturing or perhaps even triggering/prodding the viewer to entice them to respond in some way. There's the relationship between model and photographer, which can be either a facilitating factor that allows the desired vision to be realized, or it may be the central driving force or the creative source behind actually making an image. There's the relationship between humans (one, a select group, or humanity as a whole) and our environment, whether it's the 'dead' environment of inanimate objects, our natural/biological environment or our social environment, and a special case is the intimate relationship between two (or perhaps three, or four) specific individuals with its own complex dynamic which may inspire an image. There's the conceptual layer of abstract constructs or philosophical thought, or the fundamental human emotions that may be translated the most effectively if clothes don't distract from the 'naked truth'. There's the special case of ethics which we could explore by using nudity as an inherently debatable and debated notion. There's the state of mind, emotional development or personal journey of the photographer/image maker him/herself that leads them to use nudity in photography to capture or perhaps even further this personal/internal development.

There are so many things that can hide behind the seemingly simple image of normally unseen skin. Simplifying that into typology/taxonomy, or, God forbid, trying to draw a line between 'good' and 'bad' based on quite superficial and distant considerations, it's just...such a waste, really. Of course, there's the ethical aspect that has been mentioned before - given the fact that nudity is, and probably will remain, a bit of an iffy topic for some (many) in our society, and that your chosen role as a photographer is to deliberately expose a side of a person that is usually not seen by others, brings the responsibility to think about and also discuss/decide together how and under which conditions this can be done. But really, I think that's a matter of basic respect and common sense, and it should go without saying (although sadly, that's apparently not always the case.)

So I can only conclude that if anyone wants to try this, please, by all means go ahead. Don't feel yourself restricted by what others say or how they may easily dismiss one thing while idolizing another. But do think thoroughly about what you're doing or about to do. Not because 'you must', but because it's so worthwhile to explore, at least in your mind, all the aspects of this particular niche, and then decide in which direction you'd like to take it.

It would be so super nice if we could somehow get past the (often ill-disguised) normative responses that so many people have, and which generally blocks discussions of these from getting to the more interesting aspects of this topic.

Of course creating broad categories of anything is an oversimplification, but if we try to get sufficiently specific, then every single photograph is a unique category. While some "art" nudes are sufficiently clinical as to be non-erotic, a large percentage of nudes fall somewhere on the art-erotic spectrum, and will also produce a different response depending on the viewer. And it is certainly possible, although rather difficult, for some specific work to span the range from pornographic to artistic in a single photograph. Some of Robert Mapplethorpe's work comes to mind (the bullwhip photo, for example, or "Man in a Polyester Suit"... although WHY Man in a Polyester Suit is pornographic is an altogether different discussion around viewership, agency and social mores).

I hope you didn't take my attempt to provide a framework for understanding the very broad category of nude photography as an attempt to put a moral code or force a value system upon works that fall squarely into one camp or the other. And as to ethics, while I firmly believe in having a strong code of ethics while MAKING the images (establishing clear boundaries between model(s) and photographer, maintaining respect for the model(s) and their comfort levels, etc), a photograph by itself does not have ethics or morals - it's just a two-dimensional object (or no-dimensional abstraction in the case of a digital image) that exists. It has no agency or power or action or rights in itself. All that is interpreted into it by us, the audience.

 

[warden]

.....So I can only conclude that if anyone wants to try this, please, by all means go ahead. Don't feel yourself restricted by what others say or how they may easily dismiss one thing while idolizing another. But do think thoroughly about what you're doing or about to do. Not because 'you must', but because it's so worthwhile to explore, at least in your mind, all the aspects of this particular niche, and then decide in which direction you'd like to take it.

I enjoyed your post, so thanks for taking the time to write it.

 

[spijker]

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.

 

[koraks]

I hope you didn't take my attempt to provide a framework for understanding the very broad category of nude photography as an attempt to put a moral code or force a value system upon works that fall squarely into one camp or the other.

Oh no, certainly not. In fact, I found your three categories useful; they have face validity and are quite recognizable I think.
Concerning camps - I guess part of my point is that it would be nice if there weren't any.

 

[ignatiu5]

The biggest issue I have with photographic nudes is that the vast majority of photographers are producing images that cannot be defined as anything but porn, and calling it art. Its pretty obvious when a nude photograph is created for the core purpose of soliciting an erotic response in the viewer. If a photographer wants to make sexy images of a nude figure, that's fine, but don't label it "art" when making art wasn't the real intent.

I’m curious as to why you have an issue with what they call it. I could more easily understand if they were putting a descriptor on your photography, but it’s their work/effort/creation/whatever. Shouldn’t they be able to call it whatever they want? Why would it concern you if they call it art or porn or a potato?

Your statement suggests that you might think that "art" and "erotica" are mutually exclusive. If that is your opinion, obviously you're entitled to it, but it would not be something that I personally agree with.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Those terms you are not fond of are not pure inventions of people out to sap the joy out of what you do. They exist to quantify phenomena that exist whether you name them or not. I'm of the opinion that regardless of the kinds of photographs you take, you should aspire to take photographs that are not "interesting, artistic and boring, nondescript, mediocre". And especially when photographing the nude, you should try to make something that is not banal, and actually has something to say. There is a big difference between pictures of landscapes or animals and pictures of people. Pictures of people are fraught with meaning because we can not only see the individual depicted, but also the universal human in the subject. We as viewers don't try to interpret what a mountain is thinking or doing, but when we look at a photo of a person, we do. That's another gross oversimplification, but in the essence of conciseness, that's just human psychology. We are bound to do this whenever we look at other people, and we have placed meaning on nudity in our societies, so trying to argue that it shouldn't have that meaning is quixotic at best.

 

[removedacct1]

There is a big difference between pictures of landscapes or animals and pictures of people. Pictures of people are fraught with meaning because we can not only see the individual depicted, but also the universal human in the subject. We as viewers don't try to interpret what a mountain is thinking or doing, but when we look at a photo of a person, we do. That's another gross oversimplification, but in the essence of conciseness, that's just human psychology. We are bound to do this whenever we look at other people, and we have placed meaning on nudity in our societies, so trying to argue that it shouldn't have that meaning is quixotic at best.

Exactly.

 

[removedacct1]

Your statement suggests that you might think that "art" and "erotica" are mutually exclusive. If that is your opinion, obviously you're entitled to it, but it would not be something that I personally agree with.

Not at all. Helmut Newton was a great success at doing that very thing. So was the aforementioned Robert Mapplethorpe. But I find very few who attempt to make "art nudes" succeed beyond making soft porn.

 

[Vaughn]

Those terms you are not fond of are not pure inventions of people out to sap the joy out of what you do. ...

Agreed. The term "Male Gaze" is one of those terms and it does not necessarily have a negative connotation. Simply defined, it is the photographing woman from a male heterosexual perspective. Which being heterosexual men, is quite natural for heterosexual men to do. But they still have to be aware of it if they want to put their work in front of an audience of other than heterosexual males for critical consideration. Stripped of their male heterosexual ideal of sexuality, the images hopefully will have something else to carry them onwards.

Why would a woman curator be interested in another straight guy's photographs of his sense of sexual attractiveness? Almost as bad as having to see another portfolio of rocks and trees. (Edited to add: well...I guess the woman curator would be interested if her clients were older straight men.)

If one's audience is just oneself or others of the same sexual persuasion, and the model is treated with respect...then one does not have to worry about it. But while there is a heavy straight male presence here at Photrio, it is still a mixed audience.

 

[removedacct1]

Agreed. The term "Male Gaze" is one of those terms and it does not necessarily have a negative connotation. Simply defined, it is the photographing woman from a male heterosexual perspective. Which being heterosexual men, is quite natural for heterosexual men to do. But they still have to be aware of it if they want to put their work in front of an audience of other than heterosexual males for critical consideration. Stripped of their male heterosexual ideal of sexuality, the images hopefully will have something else to carry them onwards.

Well said. When leaving the domain of an audience of hetero males, the work had better have something to offer the rest of the viewers.

I was remembering a photographer from the 1970s who used the male nude as a key component for his storytelling photographs, and suddenly I remembered his name: Arthur Tress. Although he never achieved the great fame that many others did, his work is an outstanding example of how a photographer could use the nude as a vehicle for storytelling, and even though the images were about erotic ideas, the photographs transcended eroticism to become something much more meaningful. His "Superman Fantasy" is probably his best known piece: https://www.1stdibs.com/art/photogr...ls-gap-super-hero-cutout-figure/id-a_2688691/

 

[koraks]

I'm quite glad to see how the discussion is involving and I'd like to thank all for sharing your thoughts. I may not agree with all of those, but I respect also those views that differ from mine. I'm also thankful for the few interesting examples that have been shared (I did not know about Tress).

I think one of the interesting (and highly relevant) aspects that is emphasized is the interaction between the photographer, the model, the work and the audience. The nature of the audience, c.q. the 'male gaze' construct, may create a divide between nude photography that aims to please that particular crowd (and in that particular sense) and nude photography that aspires to be something different. Stepping aside the nuances that are skipped a little too easily here, mostly about the composition of that audience (their gender and their sexual orientation), what I find problematic is to conclude from this that there would be a universal norm for nude photography.

Quoting a tiny bit, at risk of taking it out of its context, which illustrates the issue:

when photographing the nude, you should try to make something that is not banal, and actually has something to say.

The 'should' is what worries me. If it were a 'could', it would already be different. It would also be different if it a condition was attached to it; something like 'you should make something [etc] if you want to pursue an artistic vision with nude photography' But these are absent, and in my opinion, such disclaimers too often are missing in the debate on this topic (not just here).

The logic that apparently goes "if it's a nude, it better meet certain criteria" is the one that I find problematic. It's based on assumptions of philosophical and psychological nature that may be true for some people, but not for others. And even if they were universal, it would still not automatically result in a set of fixed boundaries within which nude photography should remain. Neither does it imply that if one would step outside these boundaries, the endeavor should strictly be kept a private affair, as Helge suggested earlier. There's a middle ground, and a large part of that middle ground is ethically defensible, and perhaps smaller parts of it might even be artistically relevant (although I'm more hesitant at the latter).

 

[faberryman]

I don't think that suggesting that you not take banal photos of nudes is problematic, any more than saying don't take banal landscapes, banal street photos, banal this, that and the other photographs, unless you consciously want to take banal photographs, and actually are willing to admit they are intentionally banal.

 

[MattKing]

unless you consciously want to take banal photograph, and actually are willing to admit they are banal.

Or don't care whether others consider them to be banal.
I almost never worry about whether someone else has done before what I am doing now. I'm concerned about my own results.
Originality is a goal on its own - sometimes worth pursuing energetically, but often not particularly important.
If you don't find some satisfaction in what you are doing, either improve what you are doing, or do something else.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 'should' is what worries me. If it were a 'could', it would already be different. It would also be different if it a condition was attached to it; something like 'you should make something [etc] if you want to pursue an artistic vision with nude photography' But these are absent, and in my opinion, such disclaimers too often are missing in the debate on this topic (not just here).

The logic that apparently goes "if it's a nude, it better meet certain criteria" is the one that I find problematic. It's based on assumptions of philosophical and psychological nature that may be true for some people, but not for others. And even if they were universal, it would still not automatically result in a set of fixed boundaries within which nude photography should remain. Neither does it imply that if one would step outside these boundaries, the endeavor should strictly be kept a private affair, as Helge suggested earlier. There's a middle ground, and a large part of that middle ground is ethically defensible, and perhaps smaller parts of it might even be artistically relevant (although I'm more hesitant at the latter).

Ok- to clarify further- in the context of a website like Photrio, where the reasonable presumption is that participants are interested in not just taking pictures, but making better pictures, one should aspire to non-banal images that have something to say. If you photograph for Playboy for a living, or some generic nudie-magazine, I'm not going to tell you to eschew the cliche - cliche nudes sell and sell well because they're comfortable and instantly understandable to anyone looking at them. I don't have to interpret a Playboy photo in any way shape or form. There is no ambiguity about it. There is a tremendous amount of craft required to successfully execute a Playboy photograph in terms of lighting and posing and choosing props and backgrounds, and post-production editing. But that doesn't make it art. That's not a moral judgment on it for not being art, just a statement of fact.

I view myself as an art photographer. My personal aspiration is to make images where the use of nudity is integrated into the purpose of the image, and not the sole purpose of the image. I'll also freely admit that I consume nude images that do not qualify as art, by any stretch of the imagination, and I enjoy their consumption. Where I get heartburn is when people post cheesecake or beefcake photos but want it to be acclaimed as art. It's not. And all the wink-wink nudge-nudge say-no-more comments they attract that rely upon double-entendres do nothing to opaque the veneer of artistic credibility they're trying to provide.

 

[Vaughn]

...
The logic that apparently goes "if it's a nude, it better meet certain criteria" is the one that I find problematic. It's based on assumptions of philosophical and psychological nature that may be true for some people, but not for others...

What I meant was the opposite...the philosophical and psychological nature of the heterosexual male is no longer considered the gold standard in the art world...especially when it comes to the nude. A technically competent photograph of a nude/semi-nude attractive woman by a male no longer carries the same weight as it did in the art world of the recent past because the art world is no longer dominated by men.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Or don't care whether others consider them to be banal.

True enough, but if you're sharing your images be it in publications, online, or in galleries, then pretty much by definition you do care what others think about them. Does this mean you need to react to and accept the criticisms and opinions of others? No, but if you care enough to elicit opinions by sharing your work, then it behooves you to listen, even if you disagree and choose not to alter your work in response.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I hav

I don't think that suggesting that you not take banal photos of nudes is problematic, any more than saying don't take banal landscapes, banal street photos, banal this, that and the other photographs, unless you consciously want to take banal photographs, and actually are willing to admit they are intentionally banal.

Even boring landscapes offers something I often haven’t seen yet.

 

[Vaughn]

As I work with the light on the landscape, banality is always peaking over my shoulder. "My gods, Vaughn, even you have done that too many times...and better..."

One's work can become someone else's travelogue as they travel around the walls, bobbing their heads...photo...bob the head down to look at the title...one step sideways...photo, title...one step sideways...never breaking cadence until they have circumnavigated the gallery. It is interesting hanging around galleries to see what stops the head-bobbers.

 

[eddie]

 

[warden]

Hello perverts.



For those interested there is a fascinating new episode of The Modern Art Notes podcast that features the work of Anne Brigman who used female nudes quite a bit in the early 1900s. Worth a listen.

https://manpodcast.com/portfolio/no-451-anne-brigman-sheldon-acquisitions/

 

[MattKing]

I just realized that someone reading the thread title could take it to mean: "Let's take off our clothes and talk".
Isn't the English language wonderful!?

 

[Pieter12]

But we may be typing without clothes on.

 

[tballphoto]

I love making candid portraits, if there happened to a situation where there was tasteful nudity, sure. I've rarely gone beyond a breast or curve.

95% of unskilled stuff looks like trash to me. It's hard for some to not produce erotica.

Candid, casual, lovely studies of people of all ages, body type gender etc. That's great and comfortable for all concerned.

Annie Liebovitz, she's got it down.

Some of the worst photographers of the nude form are "professional". Not among the worst for being bad at technical things, but bad on the results of

1. a photograph needs to be engaging to the audience. It doesnt matter how attractive the model is. Once you see the facial expression or the eyes that tell you the model is humping the tail end of a 10mm line of cocaine.... no more engagement.

2. Its easy to go to a elementary school open house and see 90 drawings of shoes from their art class weekly project. 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..