Totally agree with both of these statements!
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
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.
Say no more, he winked knowingly....In the context of this discussion, am I the only one who found this an interesting choice of metaphor?
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.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.
+1human nature
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.
Most of nude photos are tasteless and most photographers who do nudes are peepers who haven't grown up which explains the first claim.
the author is ralph lambrect, and he is a member of this website ...Good example is the other so great book "Way beyond monochrome". The writers are so professional
¡i hope you are wearing an asbestos suit !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 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?
And in addition, he has a large body of work, covering many years, that prominently features Nudes.the author is ralph lambrect, and he is a member of this website ...
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...).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.
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.
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.
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.
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?