can you tell us what an original nude is?

"<i>an essence</i>" is the critical part of that observation, Rowdy (oops) Randy. Which still leaves the validity of this "universal essence" open to debate. As a tangential point, was body hair (or it's lacking) an essential part of that universality of female beauty? How about reeeeealy smooth skin? Moist, pouty lips? Small noses? Long legs? Thin waist? Blonde hair? Was it Igor's universality, or Jeff's? Or do you think that there is a shared component between Jeff's ideal of beauty and Igor's? What might that shared essence be? (I'll bet there is one... somewhere)... t

Actually this is the part I should have quoted "<i>an essence of female beauty that transcended what I saw</i>" because it's specific to <i>your</i> idea of female beauty and further depends on what <i>you</i> saw. The validity of eye witness testimony is losing it's previously un-impeachable weight in all manner of contests, as the editing process seems to be an unconscious one. Perhaps more <i>sub</i>conscious, Randy, in one who defines himself as "worthy of my first name"... t

Egad, not been looking at this thread for a while...still very interesting as I come back to it.

 

Struan wrote <<the way different cultures handle and think about love, sex and the differences between men and women is fascinating, but my impression of Igor's work is that he is conforming strongly to a western genre>>

 

Well, Russian culture and mores differ from American culture and mores which differ from French culture and mores which...err, you get the idea. There are huge differences in the simple aspects of every day life and how beauty, sexuality, and environmental factors are viewed. Igor is saying something with his work, the question is whether or not the person viewing the shots can see it (not everyone can see the underlying meanings, nor SHOULD they; for example, after 10+ years in Taiwan, I still turn up cold at some of the photos and art here, and find them uncreative when others find them wildly creative). Sweeden, eh? One of these years I am going to visit...Taiwan has terrible saunas (not hot enough).

 

<<Those women are used as symbols of "woman" as a sexual circus performer or a willing victim, and it's that "ideal" that is absurd. It has nothing to do with the individuals who posed for those photographs. I feel I know nothing about them as people, except what their bodies look like. This is what sets Igor's photos apart from John Peri's portraits, which are all about the individual.>>

 

Well, yes..a sexual circus performer or willing victim. This is a valid reality. Sex disasociated with the person, the body without the personality. A photographic one-night-stand. A photographic representation of the emotional content of a one-night-stand ;-).

 

And I agree, John Perri's work is incredible, but different. John Perri and Igor show two very different but equally valid realities.

 

<<It's a cross cultural ploy that is not specific to Chinese culture>>

 

Well, having spent 10 years in Chinese culture 100% and another 8 1/2 way immersed, trust me on these things. You can not apply western mores and logic to Chinese culture (this is proven correct at every traffic light). My point was that the submissive postureing is a way to wield power...

 

<<Try seeing what it's like in the homes of the young women in the kiosks, whose only alternative lifestyle (you say) is prostitution>>

 

I see the lives very well, and the lives of prostitutes. I was a professional musician for many years, and I could (and may) write a book on this exact subject from the conversations I've had with many friends who work in these kiosks and other friends who are prostitutes. Sex is sex. Nothing more, nothing less. At least here, that is.

 

<<In the culture described by Igor's photographs, men do, and women are done>>

 

Yes. This is a valid reality. There are a large number of women who want it this way and are uncomfortable with the doing part just as there are a large number of men who are uncomfortable with the being done part. That's why I say that it is a valid reality that is probably different than yours, but no less valid.

 

Igor is showing a reality, an idealized representation on one. In all honesty, I think as a body, his work is very creative (even though there are some shots that are similar).

if you call the manifested imagination of Igor "valid", I wonder what you mean by "valid"? Validated by his considerable fan base? Well okay, it is certainly appropriate to it's own interior logic. The images validate their own suppositions. So what? That might apply to all manner of psychosis. They are still (generally and as a body of work) shallow, single minded and irrelevant to any specific individual or to women in general, adhering to only a specific attribute and imposing a certain role. As a collection they define a too narrow component of what a woman is. It's boring in a manner of seconds. There are, visible in a very few images, occassional flashes of what <i>might</i> be explored by a technically capable but emotionally constrained photographic vision ... t

Tom, from your frame of reference, that is true. However, each photographer shoots from a particular frame of reference. The fact that his shots speak to others and reflect a version of reality that others can see and identify with (no one photographer will reflect the point of view of all people) validates his work (as if anyones work NEEDS validating). My point is that people who find his work dull and boring are unable to get into a different frame of mind, see a different viewpoint. That's fine. In all honesty, I would prefer if the reality that I see portrayed in his shots were NOT real. Unfortunately, life is often cold and unforgiving for many people (that's part of what I see in his shots).

and here we come to an agreement, which I sort of thought we would. He has the right to make whatever photographs he wants, they depict with sad accuracy a real and pernicious world, and I, when asked (or allowed) to critique them, will do so. <p>Thanks for being a pleasantly contentious thinker, Alton. If I lived in Sweden, I'd invite you and your wife over for a soak... t

Has it been agreed that this discussion should be on a "theoretical" level? If not, why not share some links to "original" nudes? I was impressed by this one recently:

 

http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=610227&ref=author

Everything possible regarding nudes in photography have been covered from artistic nudes............ to xxx. I think what keeps nudes around is the different girl naked bringing new interest since no two naked girls are alike, this making nudes popular with all men ranging from 13 y/o teens to 63 y/o retired guys.

forgot, what do I consider an original nude, next months centerfold :)

Yes... Just the sort of insight and creative thinking I'd expect from someone with the self-annoited monniker of "Leica King". Perhaps you might stick to porno kitties and stalking girls on the tram with your "Leica King". <p>And sticking to theoretical is just fine with me, too... t

Tom, great post. I agree on porno kitties, but I prefer stocking monkeys myself :p. This has been a fascinating discussion, and well worthwhile (has actually gotten me thinking about what I am trying to portray with my nudes, and photography in general). In fact, as a directish result, I have an idea that is gonna take several months to set up and shoot (if I can remember what the idea is for that long and find the right models). In fact, I think Igor's world view is probably quite similar to mine (hence, why his work speaks to me when it may not to other people). From my knothole, romance is a fiction that people choose to write (and others choose not to)...I love John Perri's work because he and his models still beleve in romance, however I love Igor's work because it seems to me to portray another reality.

Go back and look at the photograph. It is not simply a nude. It is a nude and a landscape. The landscape is okay. The nude is okay. The landscape is placid. The nude is modest. You could remove the nude and have an okay landscape. You could remove the landscape and have an okay nude. Together the nude and the landscape form a still life. And the still life is a cliche.

 

landscapes and nudes per se are not cliches. They are real life. They are unique. Original--no. Unless the landscape is unearthly and the nude has two heads and three legs. But unique. Both represent variations of the usual but are themselves individual.

 

Put together they make a picture that is artificial. It is the picture that has to be "original" not the landscape and the nude. To be "original" it must give you an epiphany. Never mind what kind. It can be deeply intellectual; it can be sensual. You have to be moved.

 

Igor's picture is a variation on "September Nude." Placid landscape. Modest nude. Static. Not disturbing. Nice. It is okay once. Maybe twice. Maybe thrice. But at a certain point you will say "Not again!" when you see a variation on "September Nude."

 

"Not again" was my first reaction. It took me a while to connect the photo to "September Nude."

 

If only the compostion had been stronger somehow. But it is static. It is like a layer cake. Nude / Lake / Mountains / Sky.

 

Posed photographs, as opposed to candids, are hard to pull off successfully.

 

This isn't a bad photo. It is nice. Yet, while it is always a pleasure to see a naked body and beautiful landscape, it is not terribly exiting as a picture.

Use your imagination, then fire the shutter button.

You will then have created an original nude.