Nudity and the Web - What's Our Responsibility?

[gr82bart]

I posted a naked guy this morning.

What are you - a masochist? The last guy that posted an image of nude guy ... ask him yourself - Scott? Want to update Sanders? He's in for a ride, eh? Better not be any penises hanging around.

Regards, Art. (Hmmm ... with you I seem to use a lot of question marks)

 

[Ed Sukach]

I've wrestled with this before. That is the motivation for my Article detailing a "Limited" Model Release - the best way I could think of to establish confidence that I would never cause grief to the model.

Possibly it could be revisited...? Select "Custom Model Release".

 

[patrickjames]

I think the problem that you seem to be addressing Bill is the one of exposure of nudes to people who want to see them from a purient point of view. There will always be these people in the world, but why would that stop you from doing what you are doing? I have posted nudes before and been emailed things like "do you have a high res full frontal image of.....". There are nudes on my website (watch my hitcounter go up after that one!) I personally abhore the sexualization of women. It occurred to me quite a long time ago that people for the most part equate identity and sexuality. My response to this is to eliminate identity from the form. By doing so most people will see the image as a beautiful form rather than a "hot chic". There will always be the pervs that will ask you for the image though. There is nothing you can do about that, so don't bury your head in the sand. My quibble with most male photographers that shoot nudes is it seems to me that they are trying to compensate for insecurities by hiding behind their cameras, and I get the feeling that they are trying to "collect" women's images to make themselves more of a man. Most of them also hide behind the moniker of "art" in order to do this. I have met so many photographers at all levels in my life that I feel confident enough to say this. For the record in my years of photography I have very rarely shot nudes and have turned down way more women that have asked me than I have actually shot.

Bill, uou have a uncommon gift to make beautiful images. Make them. Don't worry about the "perverts" out there. Worry about the people who can and will appreciate what you do for the beauty in it. I know I do.

Regards,

Patrick

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I personally abhore the sexualization of women. It occurred to me quite a long time ago that people for the most part equate identity and sexuality. My response to this is to eliminate identity from the form. By doing so most people will see the image as a beautiful form rather than a "hot chic".

Patrick, I had to laugh when I read your post. We have completely different sensibilities, you and I. You abhor the sexualization of women, and you find people equate identity with sexuality, so you eliminate identity to avoid sexuality. Me, I abhor the objectification of people -- to me, the elimination of identity from the form turns a person into an object. I work hard to put identity foremost in my work. Now I understand how that bothers you.

I look at a "bodyscape" (for lack of a better word) and I don't see "beautiful form," as you do. I see "decapitated person." I photograph my nude portraits to explore the person in the frame. Yet I gather you see (or fear others will see) "hot chick."

No wonder we talk past each other in these threads.

Sanders

 

[bill schwab]

What I'd like to know, Bill, is why you decided to upload a 30 year old photo to The Gallery?

George, It came when I was going through old negatives and printing them in platinum. As you said, I found it exciting to find an old image... one that had never been printed from my days in school and finding it looked great in the process. Really nothing more than that. It was more impulse. I realized after posting it that perhaps I had more of a responsibility. It was very tame in comparison to others that get posted here and even those are tame, so it wasn't any big deal at all. It was the unexpected way I felt about it afterward that became my dilemma.

Art, as for it being paternalistic, I guess I will agree to that. I now have a child and it has made me look at things far differently than ever before. Condescending? I'm not sure about that. Perhaps, but no more than any person who's been around the block trying to impart some wisdom to someone not fully aware of the potential consequences of their actions. If my kid had a loaded pistol in his hand, would it be condescending for me to point out the danger to him? Not a great analogy, but equally capapable of seriously changing your life it seems. At least in this country. I also think of you in a different league. A part of your work is outright glamour, your models appear to be more professional and in a niche where sexuality is much more overt. In other words, I think they know what they're getting themselves into more than the less experienced "girl next door" posing for figure studies. I enjoyed looking at your site, but will confess that if I had a daughter I would keep you away from her until she was at least 30!

Ian, Your point is well taken concerning adulthood but your perspective from Europe is quite a bit different than in America. Minds do not seem to be as open here. If I were living in Europe I probably wouldn't feel like I do in a place where certain officials were advocates of robes on naked statues in government buildings.

Patrick, Thank you for your kind words. They mean a lot.

Thanks to everyone else who has posted to this thread! It has been good to hear all the different perspectives.

Bill

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

What are you - a masochist? The last guy that posted an image of nude guy ... ask him yourself - Scott? Want to update Sanders? He's in for a ride, eh? Better not be any penises hanging around.

Regards, Art. (Hmmm ... with you I seem to use a lot of question marks)

I already chimed in on this thread, and was categorically ignored. I said there seems to be a huge double-standard along the gender divide. I find it interesting.

Ok-- now I've seen Sanders' "male nude" and it hardly qualifies. There's no controversy in that image.

I think there is this massive assumption that men are always 100% in control of all decisions they make and are always fully informed, so that if they choose to do something like pose nude, they must have wanted to do so, and were aware of the consequences. I think there is also an assumption about men and risk-taking. There is also another set of assumptions about men posing for photos that they must be gay, and that some hanky-panky must have taken place. Folks sexualize the act of photographing the nude, and the act of posing nude. Since photographing women nude (I just LOVE that little euphemism "photographing the female form" as if it somehow made it "art" and distinguished itself from "photographing a nude woman") IS a highly erotically charged event for many men, as is viewing photographs of nude women, they transfer this reaction to viewing male nudes. They assume the same must be true, and it wierds them out, because they then say, "well, if viewing a male nude is erotic, like viewing a female nude, am I having an erotic response to this image, and what does it say about me?".

Pardon me if this is a rant, but I'm probably feeling just too bitter today from things totally unrelated to APUG to be responding properly. Carpe Acerbum.

 

[jstraw]

Sanders, speaking as a fan...what distinguishes your work for me, is the humanity of the models as they make themselves vulnerable, empowered, etc. by baring themselves to the camera. The faces and body language is where it's at in your images. There is also no shortage of "hot chick" in your work but for me, it's the personality coming through that generates the heat and makes your portraits compelling.

 

[patrickjames]

Patrick, I had to laugh when I read your post. We have completely different sensibilities, you and I. You abhor the sexualization of women, and you find people equate identity with sexuality, so you eliminate identity to avoid sexuality. Me, I abhor the objectification of people -- to me, the elimination of identity from the form turns a person into an object. I work hard to put identity foremost in my work. Now I understand how that bothers you.

Sanders

Sanders, I am actually not bothered by what you do at all. I don't think I have written anything to give you that impression. If you read that into what I have written it is not the case. I don't think I have actually ever commented on any of your images. I have made comments on the process behind them in order to (perhaps) help you in your process, but they should have in no way gave you an impression about how I feel about the images themselves. I get the feeling that you think I have some animosity towards you, but I don't. I have tried to help you in the past, but I guess you don't see it as such. In fact I have been quite surprised by your reactions to some of the things I have written as there was no animosity intended.

As far as the objectification of women goes, I am not sure how you can say you abhor the objectification of people but in the same thread ask another photographer if you can "borrow" one of his models like she is some type of property. I hope this was just poor phrasing.

In this thread, I was responding to Bill's post because I have felt the same way from time to time and have given it quite a lot of thought. I would hate to see Bill not pursue something because of what other people have said or for the fear of what they might say or do. You can't control other people's reaction or thoughts, and I had a feeling that Bill pulled the image because it disgusted him that others would see the image as a nude woman instead of a work of art. Bill is a serious and contemplative artist. I can understand perhaps how he felt because I have experienced the same thing. How everyone else feels about this is up to them I guess.

Patrick

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Art! I posted a naked guy this morning...

Nice try...a portrait cropped from well above the nipples to above the head hardly can be called a nude portrait!

Bill,

You're right in saying that being a parent changes the way we look at the world, and I can see how your experience with the posted nude would make you pause.

Murray

P.S. Nobody asked me for a trade of my nature stuff either, but then again, who am I?

 

[bill schwab]

...that Bill pulled the image because it disgusted him that others would see the image as a nude woman instead of a work of art.

Disgust is a harsh word in this case, I think... but you are right in that it did bother me. Coming from the perspective of someone known for less controversial subject matter, it made me face an issue I was not prepared for. I'm not totally blank and I realize the nude is a poplular item around here. I look at them too. Very often at least one of those hits is from me on other's work. Placing one up myself was a completely different experience and I will most likely not go there again even if I did start working with nudes. I am now again feeling there must be some justification for doing them as they are so common as people have said. Since I started this thread I have been on Photo.net looking at galleries and it is amazing how much nudity and eroticism is there alone! It makes my original post seem so... sheltered. I guess I don't get out much these days! I am not sure the world needs me to add more.

As far as the objectification of women goes, I am not sure how you can say you abhor the objectification of people but in the same thread ask another photographer if you can "borrow" one of his models like she is some type of property...

Yikes... I missed this. Back to the sheltered life....

Bill

 

[grahamp]

The original question boils down to whether the photographer can assume responsibility for what other (mostly adult) people think or feel about a choice of subject. There must be a difference between rabble rousing and information, but it does seem that the paranoid, if not lunatic, fringe is getting a lot of power in this sort of issue. I find their arguments unstable at best. On the one hand we have the 'portray violence - cause violent behaviour' logic. Then we have the 'no clothes - stimulates prurient interest' argument. I would have thought it would be more consistent to assume that nudity would spur an interest in naturism

In my younger days (oh, a few weeks back ) I was always surprised that when women heard I had been photographing people the first thing they'd volunteer was that they wouldn't take their clothes off. I was really young - it had not occurred to me to even _ask_ ...

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, I am actually not bothered by what you do at all. I don't think I have written anything to give you that impression. If you read that into what I have written it is not the case. I don't think I have actually ever commented on any of your images. I have made comments on the process behind them in order to (perhaps) help you in your process, but they should have in no way gave you an impression about how I feel about the images themselves. I get the feeling that you think I have some animosity towards you, but I don't. I have tried to help you in the past, but I guess you don't see it as such. In fact I have been quite surprised by your reactions to some of the things I have written as there was no animosity intended.

As far as the objectification of women goes, I am not sure how you can say you abhor the objectification of people but in the same thread ask another photographer if you can "borrow" one of his models like she is some type of property. I hope this was just poor phrasing.

In this thread, I was responding to Bill's post because I have felt the same way from time to time and have given it quite a lot of thought. I would hate to see Bill not pursue something because of what other people have said or for the fear of what they might say or do. You can't control other people's reaction or thoughts, and I had a feeling that Bill pulled the image because it disgusted him that others would see the image as a nude woman instead of a work of art. Bill is a serious and contemplative artist. I can understand perhaps how he felt because I have experienced the same thing. How everyone else feels about this is up to them I guess.

Patrick

Patrick, not to belabor things, but a few quick points in reply:

1. In an earlier thread, you micharacterized my practices in editing my photography, and then labelled the micharacterized practices "ridiculous." That did strike me as a sentiment not offered with good will. You later recanted the word, but not the sentiment.

2. In an effort to build a bridge, I observed in the post above only that you and I bring different presumptions to our photography, and that must explain our differences. My observation was offered in good will. I don't see why you chose to respond with an argumentative reply.

3. My remark about "borrowing" a model was made with tongue lodged firmly in cheek. I assume that anybody reading this thread, knowing my views about objectifying people, and knowing me to be married to a prominent nude model, would get it. Clearly, you didn't.

Several people have mentioned their parental status as shaping their views on this subject. FWIW, I am 49 years old, and I have a 13-year-old daughter, and I care deeply about the role of women in society, and that is one of the spurs that led me to my subject in photography.

Sanders

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Nice try...a portrait cropped from well above the nipples to above the head hardly can be called a nude portrait!

Oops...my bad...there was even less skin involved than that. They were cropped from well above the nipples to mid forehead.

Murray

 

[RobertP]

Now let's see......how far back can we go to see the human form in art? A few thousand years maybe? Maybe some need to explore why puritanical views and their stern morality issues have effected how they view the human form in art.

 

[patrickjames]

Sanders, I do not want to get dragged into a huge debate with you. Please read the first paragraph of my post above. If you have something to say about the topic that Bill started please address that instead of looking for something to argue about. I am not going to reply to your post because no one else really cares.... Not even me.

No popcorn on my account boys.....

Patrick

 

[smieglitz]

...the act of photographing the nude..."photographing a nude woman"...

Well thank you for those Scott. I was getting very tired of reading phrases like "shooting the model."

We are talking about photographing here, or aren't we?

Joe

 

[markbb]

So far, the message seems to be that photographing nudes is nothing to do with erotism, it's all about beauty. If so, how come the vast majority of shots are of naked young people - are the bodies of people over 25 unattractive - or is it that older people are less willing to sell their image?

 

[gr82bart]

I enjoyed looking at your site, but will confess that if I had a daughter I would keep you away from her until she was at least 30!

On a completely side note, some of the best models I have worked with have been over 30. Many are professionals, mothers and more than often both.

Regards, Art.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

So far, the message seems to be that photographing nudes is nothing to do with erotism, it's all about beauty. If so, how come the vast majority of shots are of naked young people - are the bodies of people over 25 unattractive - or is it that older people are less willing to sell their image?

Mark, I jump at the opportunity to shoot women over 30, or women with different body types. But as your last line suggests, it is next to impossible to find willing candidates, thanks to the overwhelming influence of media in establishing thin youth at the commercial norm of beauty. I've had little problem finding people of diverse race and origin for my work, but the few who break the stereotypes of body form and age have been some of my best work, I think. For examples:

http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/0060Kennitta23adj.html [age]
http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/0050Gloria22alt.html [age]
http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/0450EmilyBergger4.html [size]
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) [size]

Sanders

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, I do not want to get dragged into a huge debate with you. Please read the first paragraph of my post above. If you have something to say about the topic that Bill started please address that instead of looking for something to argue about. I am not going to reply to your post because no one else really cares.... Not even me.

Of course you are right, Patrick. It's just that you put a lot of work into your post, and I thought I owed you the courtesy of a reply. My initial post DID address BIll's topic. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you address it with me via PM.

Sanders

 

[jovo]

IIn most cases they are not very experienced and are not truly professionals, but students, young people looking for a way to make some extra money, etc. They are not really thinking in terms of what is yet to come. Considering that at least here in America one’s reputation can be destroyed by something as innocent as posing naked for a photograph, is there more of a responsibility on our part as photographers when we post them to APUG and other sites?

Boy, is that ever a valid and responsible concern. I'm thinking of young people who may at some future time in their lives choose to become teachers or care givers to children where a decision made years earlier, however seemingly well informed, eventually becomes an issue with their ability to pursue that profession. Teachers, in particular, are not free to use even the ubiquitous phrases common to TV characters watched by their students ( "sucks", "pissed" etc.). To be discovered in nude images made years before could easily become scandalous in many, if not most communities.

OTOH, a photographer can only do so much, and beyond clear and complete discussion and the affidavit of an 'informed consent' model release, shouldn't have to feel responsible for the future lives of their models. But, it's nice to know that, in this case, you did, Bill. I think you took a very proactive, ethical position by withdrawing the photograph.

'

 

[jstraw]

So far, the message seems to be that photographing nudes is nothing to do with erotism, it's all about beauty. If so, how come the vast majority of shots are of naked young people - are the bodies of people over 25 unattractive - or is it that older people are less willing to sell their image?

I will go on record as being decidedly pro-eroticism. I like eroticism. I like erotic photgraphy and I believe that there is room in fine art photography for eroticism.

Avoiding eroticism reminds me of the "sportsmen and hunters" drumbeat among weak-kneed "supporters" of the 2nd Amendment.

I also believe that eroticism can extend beyond popular notions of beauty.

I also believe that Sanders' and others' work in the APUG galleries (hi F.C.), is not devoid of eroticism. It is assuredly not the central theme or componant.

I do not fear eroticism. Human beings are quite often beautiful and sexual.

Separating considerations of beauty and sexuality from nude depictions of the human form seems frankly ridiculous to me.

What aspects of humanity are innapropriate for exploration through photography and art?

 

[bjorke]

Around the same time I became aware there was news all over of a girl from the “Idol” show who someone had found nude photos of on the Internet. Very innocent ones I understand.

It's hard to see how nude+camera equals any degree of innocence, but... just the same, she was pretty hawt. Even clothed.

<slight_tangent>
One of the puzzling contradictions of our society is that nude still photos and paintings are widely considered okay as art, while photos of, say, Spanish partisans getting shot or dead Lebanese civilians are considered to be hopelessly tasteless -- while in "entertainment" like TV and movies, exactly the opposite is true. James Bonds can machinegun and explode no shortage of enemies in spectacularly-greusome ways, but if his companion removes her top then it gets rated "R" and is no longer available to unaccompanied kids.
</slight_tangent>

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There should be no artificial boundaries placed on what we can and cannot explore in art. To say that "you can go here but no farther" begs the artist to go not only there but beyond. There may be a time in which something is not appropriate - painting someone falling from an office building on September 12, 2001 would have been in poor taste. In 2007, we can include an image of someone falling from a building and it doesn't raise any greater eyebrows or indignation than it would have on September 10, 2001.

We should be able to show images of human sexuality, in all its flavors, in an artistic medium. To back up a bit and address an earlier comment, I should distinguish something - the act of photographing a nude human figure, male or female, need not be any more an erotic act than photographing rocks and trees. Frankly, shooting nudes is a lot of work! I don't have time to get horny when working with a model. I won't claim that I don't want my viewers to be erotically inspired by my work, but I don't want it to be their ONLY response either. To me that is the distinction between art and porn - porn provokes a single response (in a willing consumer) but art provokes multiple responses in the same viewer, often at the same time. Porn exists inside a container (magazine, DVD, etc), which can be put away at will. Art exists in a public space where it continuously interacts with its audience.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

James Bonds can machinegun and explode no shortage of enemies in spectacularly-greusome ways, but if his companion removes her top then it gets rated "R" and is no longer available to unaccompanied kids.

This past year, I've introduced my 13-year-old daughter, Maeve, to the joys of James Bond as incarnated by Sean Connery. I was looking forward to seeing the new Casino Royale with her. I'm glad I saw it alone first. The violence and brutality were just shockingly sadistic, and I was amazed that it got only a PG-13 rating here in the States. And it's too bad, because I thought the new actor playing Bond was by far the best since Connery.