The Power of Nudity??

[Theo Sulphate]

Right on!

Having been to both clothed-only and clothes-optional beaches as a young USA-certified horny male, I would say that the only difference between the two is that the clothes-optional beaches were much more relaxing. That and one had to use more sunscreen...

One of the most beautiful, non-erotic sights in the world is that of a mother breast-feeding a child in public. It stirs the heart, not the gonads.

Vaughn

Totally agree with both of these statements!

 

[Vaughn]

I like where you have gone with this, in general.

To refine in this vein, I suggest that this "facticity" is secondary to the primary experience. The instantaneous experience, the moment of visual/tactile/auditory/aromatic/flavor perception, is uncontaminated by culture. This is not "facticity."

The very next moment, the hard-wired pure reflexive form like pulling back your had when it is burned by hot metal, can be seen as survival-oriented, a part of "our nature"; it is not learned. This is not “facticity.”

Consciously managing "our nature", what we do after perception and the immediate reaction, the cultural component, is the "facticity."

An aroma of food gets us salivating and then leads to memories of the food. We aren't taught to drool.

I will disagree and say that culture is always inbetween 'reality' and one's perceptions -- there is no "instantaneous experience" that can happen outside of a cultural context (or one's facticity, if my understanding of the term is correct). We salivate at the smell of cooked food for the same reason Pavlov's dogs did at the sound of a bell -- conditioning (aka learning). One meal and you are hooked for life!

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Perception is culture-free, what we do with it afterwards may be cultivated. You are talking to the employed Berkeley Psych major but I learned this at a Jr. College Skinnerian class. Dogs salivate in response to food cues just as undomesticated canines, like wolves, do. What Pavlov demonstrated was that a dogs natural salivation response to food could be conditioned by repeated syncronization to the bell. After a number of trials it turned out the the dogs responded to the bell with salivation. That is cultivation.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

In the context of this discussion, am I the only one who found this an interesting choice of metaphor?

Say no more, he winked knowingly....

 

[Vaughn]

I should know better than to argue with an expert, but I will agree the info reaching the brian is culture-free (that instant you mentioned), but how the brain perceives it, is affected by culture, etc.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I think that we are struggling with definitions and moments. What the retina registers, what gets processed in that layer of receptors/processors getting funneled into the optic nerve, and what becomes manifest in the brain; that is visual perception. This doesn't just shine onto a screen in our brains but streams through as many as 30 pathways that treat the info in different ways and effect the consequent final experience of perception. The reaction to it is exceedingly primitive. The simplest analogy is reacting to something touched that burns you; it is considered as a reflex.

I think the best way to relate my idea of hard-wiring is with the concept of human imprinting. An infant has no inculturation yet it responds to temperature, sounds and such. The infant knows to suckle when presented with a nipple in the first moments of life. By the time the neo-natal starts to see, a murky experience at best, it starts to perceive shapes, notably and hopefully mother, to which the infant attends and "values". Along with the other stimuli a bond, which roots are in the infant brain, is created; it is a survival behavior. The relationship with mother is something built upon that. It is not a decision as we understand them. It is not a reflex. It is an early identification based upon need to survive built into us. It fits within our primal need.

Our reaction to images, especially if they are well executed, blows right by all of our defenses. It is in us before we know it and touches a part of us at a very primitive way. We have an emotional reaction to that and it can be bewildering. Are we reacting to our "nature" or powerful events or often re-experienced events. How we manage that as children, as adolescents, and adults is quite different.

As to nudes, sexual identity, and the like: the early days of life and life experience seem to be the greatest determinants, built immediately upon an early identification, based upon need to survive built into us.

This part is less sciency: my creative vision was smothered by a need to make money, which I did for many years. It is only through my move to shooting people that I could get back to something more meaningful at a deep level. As I have involved myself in instruction my camera, my apprehension, has been moved to capture things I do not understand. I've learned not to ask questions, not get bogged down in culture or have my brain/ego get in the way. As quickly as possible, I get a good exposure, develop the images to my best abilities, and experience the result. I believe it is a primitive experience of perception.

 

[Vaughn]

Cool...thanks for the explanation. I think some folks would call your less sciency part, "Zenning it". And as far as I can tell, it is similar to the way I approach the light on the landscape.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Thank you for that "zenning" input. I have just been going with it; sometimes I barely focus and just see. I know how my mind works; if I think about an image, free of commercial influence, I will kill it.

 

[JBrunner]

Reactions to art usually tell more about the patron, rather than the art.

 

[jtk]

Mike, I agree with lot of what you've written...but (there's that word) I don't accept that commerce is more of a distraction than is the desire to make "art" or to produce beauty.

Midway in my own photo re-education, via RIT connections, I heard a zen perspective from photographers who actively practiced that discipline (sat za-zen). Like many I'd been influenced by people like Alan Watts years earlier, and that wasn't more closely related to photo than to dish washing (for example).

As I understand zen practice it begins with minimizing distractions of all sorts: e.g. sex, hunger, pain, and cold. The need to make money can be a minimal distraction because money-making can be so simple, if treated seriously/honestly. If it's not addressed with that respect it can bite.

From another angle, making photos fully consciously, intentionally, can be more zen-related than making photos casually.

Zen was brought to Japan from India/China specifically to make warriors, not to make artists or dreamers.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Simply, after many years of commerce, I have had my own revelation. I probably made a mistake steering toward the money as opportunities availed themselves. I did okay but I cannot say that commerce-oriented imaging is, most often, as satisfying as what I am doing now. It is not why I picked up a camera.

 

[Vaughn]

Thank you for that "zenning" input. I have just been going with it; sometimes I barely focus and just see. I know how my mind works; if I think about an image, free of commercial influence, I will kill it.

I normally avoid describing the way I work as 'Zenning it" as it is far from Zen itself, but it was the best I could come up with in relating to how you work. Actually, your approach sounds a bit deeper than that.

A photographer once gave his working theory about composition. Best as I could follow, it was based on two forms, feminine (curves) and male (angular)...and how using these two forms together can create tension in an image that will involve the viewer. From how you describe your process, would this visual (sexual?) tension "blow right by all of our defenses" and create that primitive reaction of perception? And if yes, would this reaction influence the way the viewer continues to take in and perceive the image?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

human nature

+1

 

[pocketshaver]

their is no need to use seudo scientific, or cultural reasons as to why a nude photo gets more interest then a non nude photo.

Its basic IMAGINATION. You take any random image of a naked person you find on the internet. Imagine them dressed as someone in a non desired profession, say cashier at walmart, mcdonalds, a waitress or short order cook in a greasy diner that has 10 year old cockroaches curled up in the ashtray.. then compare them to if they were dressed as a "desired profession". Say nurse, doctor, fitness trainor, or fireman.

youll notice the interest goes naked, to fireman or doctor, then waitress or janitor.

 

[John51]

their is no need to use seudo scientific, or cultural reasons as to why a nude photo gets more interest then a non nude photo.

Its basic IMAGINATION. You take any random image of a naked person you find on the internet. Imagine them dressed as someone in a non desired profession, say cashier at walmart, mcdonalds, a waitress or short order cook in a greasy diner that has 10 year old cockroaches curled up in the ashtray.. then compare them to if they were dressed as a "desired profession". Say nurse, doctor, fitness trainor, or fireman.

youll notice the interest goes naked, to fireman or doctor, then waitress or janitor.

I've forgotten the name of the photographer. She did a self portrait sat at a desk wearing a sweater. The self portrait next to it was the same except that she was topless. She made her point with me. Intellectually, I knew it was the same woman. Emotionally, I saw 2 different women.

 

[radiant]

Most of nude photos are tasteless and most photographers who do nudes are peepers who haven't grown up which explains the first claim.

Good example is the other so great book "Way beyond monochrome". The writers are so professional that I still cannot understand the nude photos on that book. I feel sorry for the models, really. In most of the photos the models don't look happy at all. I cannot understand haven't the writers come up any other photos as example. The best (worst) picture is the one which is being framed with nipple in the middle of the picture. I cannot overcome this still and I have seriously thought masking the photos since they don't even bring anything to the book.

 

[removedacct1]

Most of nude photos are tasteless and most photographers who do nudes are peepers who haven't grown up which explains the first claim.

Agreed. Most of the nudes I have seen (both female AND male) are soft porn parading as "art". I think a lot of photographers are kidding themselves into thinking what they are making is "art", when in fact much of it is just goofy porn.

 

[removed account4]

Good example is the other so great book "Way beyond monochrome". The writers are so professional

the author is ralph lambrect, and he is a member of this website ...

Agreed. Most of the nudes I have seen (both female AND male) are soft porn parading as "art". I think a lot of photographers are kidding themselves into thinking what they are making is "art", when in fact much of it is just goofy porn.

¡i hope you are wearing an asbestos suit !

 

[KenS]

I find it interesting that nudity still seems to have the power to draw people in. In this age of pornography everywhere, internet, videos etc why does an image that has simple nudity still draw more viewers?

I notice that when I place a photograph for critique on a site like APUG or on EBay for sale that the photos that get the most hits (every time) are the ones that have nudity in them, it does not matter if it is male or female, nudity draws the hits. I can have the same subject with the same lighting, camera etc with a clothed subject but it will not get as many hits as the nude version.

Are people just so concerned with seeing others naked? Curiosity? Is it a sexual thing? Or does including nudity make a image more visually strong?

Gerry...
There are a significant number of photographers working in 'Insitutes of Higher Learning' and Hospitals in nearly every country whose job requires that they have to make photographs of both male and female patients (both old and young)
as part of their job 'requirements'. It is NOT voyeristic.... it is just part of the ''before and after' requirements of their position... It so happens I have 'earned' the 'right' to participate in 'work' of this nature.. by passing both the 'written exam AND the practicum part (portfolio).. and then sitting in a room with qualified 'peers' that must agree in a "face to face defence' of the quality of your 'work'... followed by a rather 'heafty' Question and Answer. Should you be anywhat 'interested' in such a position, contact the Biocom.org website.
(It is not really such an 'exciting job as many might think.)... and it is a LOT harder than 'earning' your BFA from your 'favourite' (non-American spelling) University

Ken

 

[MattKing]

the author is ralph lambrect, and he is a member of this website ...

And in addition, he has a large body of work, covering many years, that prominently features Nudes.
Ralph Lambrecht is back in Europe, after spending a long time in the USA. From his posts over the years I think I'd be fair in observing that he finds the attitude of North Americans toward the human body to be quite strange.
If you want to see more discussion on this, see if you can find his thread about leaving his photography on display while he was listing his Florida home for sale. The cultural differences are fascinating.

 

[Vaughn]

Agreed. Most of the nudes I have seen (both female AND male) are soft porn parading as "art". I think a lot of photographers are kidding themselves into thinking what they are making is "art", when in fact much of it is just goofy porn.

Alas, it is just as often "non-artists" having fun making goofy porn parading as just pretty pictures (just mentally capitalized 'goofy' -- that was a mistake...).

 

[Arklatexian]

It seems to me that, compared to the "classic" nudes of the 1950s and earlier, when there were definite limits on what could be sent through the mails, most of the nudes we see today, in photography, are pictures of naked people rather than studies of form and line. Which you prefer is, of course, your business but please don't try to pass off all pictures of naked people as "art" because after seeing those from the 1950s and earlier, I have serious doubts about whether most modern-day nudes qualify. As I too have preferences, I prefer the 1950s version..........Regards!

 

[AgX]

Good example is the other so great book "Way beyond monochrome". ... I cannot understand haven't the writers come up any other photos as example.

One of the authors is one of us Apug fellows. Just ask him.

 

[AgX]

It seems to me that, compared to the "classic" nudes of the 1950s and earlier, ..., most of the nudes we see today, in photography, are pictures of naked people rather than studies of form and line.

You restrict art to studies of form and line.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agreed. Most of the nudes I have seen (both female AND male) are soft porn parading as "art". I think a lot of photographers are kidding themselves into thinking what they are making is "art", when in fact much of it is just goofy porn.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying admiring and view human bodies, some are done better than others. Some upset or revolt viewers. One must choose those photographers' whose work appeals.