Resource icon

Thoughts on Nudes and Photography

A
Thread starter Ian Leake
Start date Sep 5, 2007

Overview Discussion

CurtisNeeley
Deleted

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 3, 2008

#26

CurtisNeeley said:
The fact that you interacted with the model does not mean that there must be interaction with the viewer of the photo.

Erotica is NOT bad at all. It is just not found in figurenudes. Sensual, perhaps, but not intentionally erotic.

Just as a 'landscape' may appeal to your senses of beauty, a figurenude should as well.

Not all fine art nudes are figurenudes. Few art nudes actually are. They are not superior to another nude. They are just different.

Bob, I disagree that disrobing is inherently erotic. Depending on whether you accept the Bible or not, humans were created nude. The first 'blood sacrifice' for human sin was integrated in clothing them. Animals lost their skins. Fig leaves just didn't cut it. This was the very first foreshadowing of Jesus' perfect innocent sacrifice. He could have just made them have coats of fur. He instead left them able to disrobe and enjoy what I feel is His greatest work of art. I believe there are many cultures in warmer climates where varying degrees of nudity is normal?

I always say, " If God had ever wished a woman's figure to be presented nude, He would have done it first Himself." ...Try to overlook my ignoring of the male nude, They can be done very well. Just not by me.

Curtis, your figurenude concept is wrong on many levels. As several previous posters have said, all art engages the viewer - if it doesnt engage the viewer then its not art, its a just a record. And all artists engage with their subject if theyre not engaging with their subject then theyre not making art, theyre just making a record. It doesn't matter whether the subject is a person or a landscape or a collection of things - engagement must be there or it just doesn't work.

You have misappropriated a common phrase, figure nude, and are trying to re-define it into something which is illogical and artistically sterile. Adding a layer of pseudo-religious claptrap doesnt make it alright. Your nonsense is still nonsense. And your rules are without merit. Whether a nude model is looking at the viewer or not is irrelevant. Whether the artist intends the work to celebrate, sexually stimulate or shock is irrelevant. Whether the viewer sees the work as beautiful, erotic, or disgusting is irrelevant. Whether the work is in two or three dimensions is irrelevant. Whether we evolved from apes or were created by God is irrelevant.

There are no rules that govern nudes: there are just the emotions, creative impulses and the creativity of artists and models. And there are no rules about how viewers react to nudes: there are just their emotions, taste and opinions. There are nudes I have made, nudes I want to and will make, and nudes I don't want to make. But I will decide what I do and do not make - I'll be damned if I'll let a linguistic mountebank try to define what is or is not acceptable for me to do with my work.

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 3, 2008

#27

CurtisNeeley said:
The fact that you interacted with the model does not mean that there must be interaction with the viewer of the photo.

?Must??? Nothing is mandatory ... To me, "interaction" is necessary. Who has the authority to declare what must, or must not, be done?

Erotica is NOT bad at all. It is just not found in figurenudes. Sensual, perhaps, but not intentionally erotic.
Just as a 'landscape' may appeal to your senses of beauty, a figurenude should as well.
Not all fine art nudes are figurenudes. Few art nudes actually are. They are not superior to another nude. They are just different.

This appears to be an exercise is separating "Fine Art Nudes" from "Figurenudes" ... or am I mistaken? That is a distinction I have trouble making - and I don't see any necessity for making it. Perhaps you can post examples of each so that we can determine the difference between the two?

... Depending on whether you accept the Bible or not, humans were created nude. The first 'blood sacrifice' for human sin was integrated in clothing them. Animals lost their skins. Fig leaves just didn't cut it...

... I always say, " If God had ever wished a woman's figure to be presented nude, He would have done it first Himself." ...

Now I am lost. Skinless animals? The creator DID first present woman (and man) nude.

CurtisNeeley
Deleted

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 3, 2008

#28

CurtisNeeley said:
I suppose I will just leave you all alone. Figurenude may be a 'misappropriation' of two words that are common. I do not care if anyone else accepts it or if anybody besides myself understands it. It is starting to look like very few do. Dismiss it as you will. I was asked to post examples?

Well ... the way I would probably evaluate these if I were to experience them hanging in a Gallery -

From the top:

1. Nicely done "Fine Art".

2. Somewhat "coarse" in my aesthetic opinion. Are aesthetics in question?

3. Odd. Not really erotic - Possibly still within the bounds of "Fine Art", but arguable. Emotional response: flinch.
There is an interaction >within< the photograph. Was that incorrectly described as a "relation" between the *photograph* and the *viewer*?

4. No. Fine Art, at some level.

I think I'll avoid using the term "figurenude". It seems grossly affected, and unnecessary.

BobNewYork

Member

Feb 3, 2008

#29

In my opinion the first image posted is extremely good. However, I have to say that it is also erotic. Not only erotic but clearly intentionally so. That the nipples of the model are as they are, and in the absence of "goose flesh" suggests, in fact overtly conveys a state of arousal. This must have been intentional else the photograph would not have been taken - or at least would not have been finished. This in no way detract from the value of the image, but does, however, call into question claims of inadvertent eroticism.

JMO

Bob

gandolfi

Member

Feb 3, 2008

#30

hi Ian

this thread has unfortunately been hijacked into something other than the content of your article.

that's a pity, as there are many things to discuss.

I have two small "issues" (I am not so fluent in english, so bear with my simple wordings..)

"Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it.."

can't an image of a Challenger be beautiful? does it have to be ugly?
I have moved from being a Celebrationist (I still celebrate the female form) into being more of a challenger.
However, I doesn't seem to be able to make "ugly" images.. (or so I am told).

where does that leave me?

I don't like the horndog/robot labels... mostly because I have no idea what a horndog is.....

"Nudes and the Model

How should photographers work with models in the studio? Many, if not most, people have an opinion on this. I dont know whether theres a correct way of working.....

First: having had numerous discussions about this with models, I "always" miss the point of view of the model!
as a photographer, we assume, we do it right. which doesn't mean we do it right.

you continue: "as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other."

that's true of course. I think the "correct" way of working with a model is simply (not easily done) to be honest.
If you're honest, you can do about anything with the model, because there is no hidden agenda.
which makes it easier for the model to be comfortable.....

when I finally make my book on nude photography (if ever), then I have promised my self a whole chapter in that book on how it looks from the models perspective..

does this make sense?

regards
emil

CurtisNeeley
Deleted

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#31

gandolfi said:
"Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it.."

can't an image of a Challenger be beautiful? does it have to be ugly?
I have moved from being a Celebrationist (I still celebrate the female form) into being more of a challenger.
However, I doesn't seem to be able to make "ugly" images.. (or so I am told).

where does that leave me?

gandolfi said:
How should photographers work with models in the studio? Many, if not most, people have an opinion on this. I dont know whether theres a correct way of working.....
you continue: "as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other."

that's true of course. I think the "correct" way of working with a model is simply (not easily done) to be honest.
If you're honest, you can do about anything with the model, because there is no hidden agenda.
which makes it easier for the model to be comfortable.....

Hi Emil,

I wasnt trying to imply that Celebrationist and Challenger are mutually exclusive, just that the more someone celebrates the less they tend to challenge and vice versa (the more they challenge the less they celebrate). I must say that your work is very, very beautiful, and photos like (there was a url link here which no longer exists) raise lots of questions. But I dont find the same level of challenge as I do with Mapplethorpes X portfolio which, in my opinion, is very far over on the Challenger side of the scale. That leads me to the thought that one persons Celebrationist may be anothers Challenger Does that make sense?

On your other thought about working with models... Youve hit the nail on the head the correct way to work with a model is to be honest, totally honest. Now I come to think of it, probably all the horror stories that models have told me are about dishonesty, hidden agendas, or breach of trust. Thank you. And now I need to work out how to re-write / update that section

Thanks again Emil for your contribution.

Ian.

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#32

CurtisNeeley said:
...

Curtis, you have an unusual and very challenging life story which has given you a unique perspective on life. If you want to discuss this, have your photographs critiqued, and contribute to APUG then theres a right way to do it and a wrong way. The right way is to start your own threads in the forums and subscribe to APUG so you can use the galleries. The wrong way is to hijack article discussions. Please use the right way.

Stephen Frizza

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#33

my view is very simple, I feel a nude is a study of the form weather it be light over the form, the texture of the form the shape of the form etc. however one must read carefully into the realm of nudes and always make sure the image appears as though the nude is a consenting study, for too easily can an image be misconstrued.

I feel photographs of the nude can become photographs of the naked and that the key difference between a photograph of the nude and a photograph of the naked is when a sense of subject vulnerability, photographer / viewer voyeuristic intrusiveness and subject dis consent is introduced into the image.

Both images have their merits in appropriate grounds and may warrant praise. However I feel too often both realms
can slip into the Why factor? cliché images often draw me to this thinking, and all i am able to settle upon is reasons of a less tasteful nature.

my point is I think the defining of an image is essential before its construction and its exhibition must be carefully chosen when it is of The Nude and The naked or it may find itself in the pits of porn.

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2008

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#34

Stephen Frizza said:
I feel photographs of the nude can become photographs of the naked (snip) Both images have their merits in appropriate grounds and may warrant praise. However I feel too often both realms can slip into the Why factor? cliché images often draw me to this thinking, and all i am able to settle upon is reasons of a less tasteful nature.

Cliché, the bane of all art The world is awash with me too imagery and with photos where the photographer believes theyve created art just because theyve made a picture of a beautiful subject (though mostly theyve just managed to make a beautiful subject look mundane).

Eddie Ephraums has said that every photographer should be able to sum up their guiding principles in three words (see Ag #50 for a very interesting and though provoking article). My three words are Explore, Reveal and Celebrate. Knowing my purpose helps me avoid cliché (or at least, I hope it does ).

But Im inclined to be more generous about why people make clichéd images: all violin makers can make violins, but only Stradivarius could make a Stradivarius.

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Advertiser

Feb 4, 2008

#35

gandolfi said:
hi Ian

this thread has unfortunately been hijacked into something other than the content of your article.

that's a pity, as there are many things to discuss.

I have two small "issues" (I am not so fluent in english, so bear with my simple wordings..)

"Personally, I believe there is sufficient ugliness in the world without me adding to it.."

can't an image of a Challenger be beautiful? does it have to be ugly?
I have moved from being a Celebrationist (I still celebrate the female form) into being more of a challenger.
However, I doesn't seem to be able to make "ugly" images.. (or so I am told).

where does that leave me?

I don't like the horndog/robot labels... mostly because I have no idea what a horndog is.....

"Nudes and the Model

How should photographers work with models in the studio? Many, if not most, people have an opinion on this. I dont know whether theres a correct way of working.....

First: having had numerous discussions about this with models, I "always" miss the point of view of the model!
as a photographer, we assume, we do it right. which doesn't mean we do it right.

you continue: "as both of them are comfortable with it and they trust each other."

that's true of course. I think the "correct" way of working with a model is simply (not easily done) to be honest.
If you're honest, you can do about anything with the model, because there is no hidden agenda.
which makes it easier for the model to be comfortable.....

when I finally make my book on nude photography (if ever), then I have promised my self a whole chapter in that book on how it looks from the models perspective..

does this make sense?

regards
emil

Emil- the "horndog" label was an attempt at putting a bit of a humorous spin on the label. A "horndog" is a (usually) man who allows his sexual response to a subject to overpower all other responses. Perhaps then the better label pairing is "sexual/clinical". Does that make the continuum I spoke of make more sense?

gandolfi

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#36

horndog

thanks for the explanation. I kind og thought it was something like that, but the word isn't in my dictionary..

I once had a conversation with a girl, interested in modelling (she was thinking about it)

I told her, that deep down, the reason I wanted to photograph her was, that i would like to have sex with her.... in a passive sort of way..

First she was schocked - then she thanked me for my honesty, and agreed to pose for me..

(we didn't have sex at all... but good pictures came out of it..)

was I a horndog - or just honest? is a honest horndog a horndog?

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#37

To me "horndog" implies a lack of control or a conscious attempt to manipulate. What your describing Emil is honesty, openness and self awareness - not characteristics that I'd apply to "horndog".

BobNewYork

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#38

I've done few "personal" nude studies, but quite a few commissions for individuals who, for various reasons want nude B&W photographs of themselves. I frankly find these very difficult sessions because there is a very fine line between "evocative" and "provocative." Clients

I think it's essential that there be an honesty between the photographer and model - nude or not - otherwise any uncomfortableness, (different to discomfort!) is clearly evident in the eyes.

I usually give the negs to the model as a form of adding comfort. None of them figure in my portfolio as, for commissions at least, I believe that while I may well have the legal rights to the images I should not ethically show these photographs to others. In fact I think a photographer should never display or show images that may embarrass a subject. This does not apply to photojournalism, of course; although even here I believe that the photographer should exercise some integrity.

FWIW

Bob

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Advertiser

Feb 4, 2008

#39

BobNewYork said:
I've done few "personal" nude studies, but quite a few commissions for individuals who, for various reasons want nude B&W photographs of themselves. I frankly find these very difficult sessions because there is a very fine line between "evocative" and "provocative." Clients

I think it's essential that there be an honesty between the photographer and model - nude or not - otherwise any uncomfortableness, (different to discomfort!) is clearly evident in the eyes.

I usually give the negs to the model as a form of adding comfort. None of them figure in my portfolio as, for commissions at least, I believe that while I may well have the legal rights to the images I should not ethically show these photographs to others. In fact I think a photographer should never display or show images that may embarrass a subject. This does not apply to photojournalism, of course; although even here I believe that the photographer should exercise some integrity.

FWIW

Bob

Bob -

I agree and disagree with what you're saying. As far as my nude work in general (and I think I can speak for Ian on this count as well), my models are fully cognizant of the fact that this work is being done to show in a public forum. I do give them my assurances that I will not place it in a forum that they might find distasteful or inappropriate.

As far as commissioned work goes, I don't give away the negatives because I would not want my work being reproduced during my lifetime in a way that might discredit me, either through mis-placement or through poor reproduction. I also would not want clients who ask for me to shoot them, and ask for the negatives begging privacy, to turn around and sell those images without proper credit and compensation (this has happened before!). As to boudoir or other kinds of "edgy" work that someone might commission, of course I would ask permission from the subject to include said work in a portfolio, but if it was a service I wanted to sell, I'd not give away any and all rights to the work in such a way that I could not use it to promote (discreetly) the service. Maybe in a book form only that is shown to clients in face-to-face meetings. Maybe on a password-protected website (most likely not though). Regardless, it would have to be model-released to show it to anyone, but I'd always ask for the release. Your work does you no good if you can't use it to get more work.

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#40

TheFlyingCamera said:
I agree and disagree with what you're saying. As far as my nude work in general (and I think I can speak for Ian on this count as well), my models are fully cognizant of the fact that this work is being done to show in a public forum. I do give them my assurances that I will not place it in a forum that they might find distasteful or inappropriate.

Yes, all my published models are paid and have signed releases. Useage on the Internet is explicitly stated in my release and I've never had a model query this.

I have done a small number of "commissioned" nudes (some with and some without releases). But these, by their very nature, shall remain private. I still keep the negs though.

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Advertiser

Feb 4, 2008

#41

Ian- while the subject of model releases is on our minds, would you mind sharing your model release that you use? I'm just using a boilerplate release form, but it would be nice to see one that has been customized to protect both artist and model without giving away the farm to the model.

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#42

TheFlyingCamera said:
Ian- while the subject of model releases is on our minds, would you mind sharing your model release that you use? I'm just using a boilerplate release form, but it would be nice to see one that has been customized to protect both artist and model without giving away the farm to the model.

Here you are Scott: Model Release Form. There's a space for us to agree special terms or restrictions but I've only used this twice I think. Being based in London I've not had it checked by a US lawyer - where's Sanders when you need him?

BobNewYork

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#43

It's th commissioned ones I was really referring to - which is actually the vast majority. These tend to be commissioned privately and often for husbands or partners. One was someone who said to me - "I'll never look better than this and I want to remember it." So they're images which I wouldn't feel comfortable showing anyone - privately or otherwise. The reason I give the negs is that the client need never concern themselves that such images will appear publicly. Legal recourse for such publication is not the point with these.

I fully understand the point about using my work but, as it's not my mainstream anyway I'm not overly concerned. Plus the fact that I'm very certain that none of the clients has any interest in their publication or distribution. I usually encourage the client to bring a friend or partner to the sitting - not one of them has, but I feel the offer gives them a degree of comfort.

Do you guys find this work difficult as well? Every commission I've had for this work has been for "Fine Art Black and White Nudes." As such, you know the client wants evocative images - but that dividing line is so damn thin!

Bob

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Advertiser

Feb 4, 2008

#44

I've never had a problem with maintaining the dividing line between evocative and provocative - then again, many folks consider even the simplest of my nudes to be provocative (verging on offensive!). Then again, it's much easier I think in some ways working with male models - the outward signs of arousal (usually considered to be the dividing line between provocative and not) are much more obvious with men.

BobNewYork

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#45

Yes I can see that. I've never worked with male models. I guess also, that with the vast majority of my nude work the decision isn't made by me - the determination is that of the client / model. The usual commission is always, of course, for "tasteful images." Define tasteful!

Bob

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#46

BobNewYork said:
Do you guys find this work difficult as well? Every commission I've had for this work has been for "Fine Art Black and White Nudes." As such, you know the client wants evocative images - but that dividing line is so damn thin!

Nope. I've worked with all sorts of body shapes and ages - there's always something beautiful to reveal. People asking for commissions have seen my work and know what they're going to get. I generally do this for free so if I think they want something that is not my style then I won't do it. On the other hand I find straight portraits very traumatic

BobNewYork

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#47

I think it's the keeping the paying client happy that's the traumatizing factor

Whenever I feel like the Lone Ranger in this regard I re-read the Weston Daybooks!

Bob

OP

OP

Ian Leake

Subscriber

Feb 4, 2008

#48

I have to ration my Daybooks reading - if I overdose I find myself with an almost overwhelming urge to throw in my real job to become a bohemian living on nuts and peppers. That's very scary!

BobNewYork

Member

Feb 4, 2008

#49

Know what you mean. Haven't seen mine in a while - I'm convinced the wife's hidden it - or worse.

Luke Spadavecchia

Member

Apr 2, 2008

#50

Hi, I enjoyed the article and the comments it provoked. MY opinions are very liberal WRT the subject, and although I have never considered taking nudes before, I am sufficiently interested to try with someone I know well. I think perhaps posing as a model myself at the local arts college may be a good introduction to the form... Thanks L.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email