What's so cool about nudes?

I love photography, from the theories to the actual images. I grew up like

everybody else... as a child, naked is bad. Maybe that manifests itself in my

thoughts when I see a nudity photographs. In theory, these photographs are

art, but to me some of these photos seem like infatuations with the opposite

sex; nothing more than pornography. Am I missing something? My question

really is mainly to hear other photographers thoughts, and that is: Are nudity

photos art? Why or why not?

Some nude photos are driven by nothing more than a desire to be in the same room with a naked lady, some are nothing more than porn, and some a very beautiful studies of light and form. It all really depends on your own personal opinion.

 

However, the same could be said for virtually all forms of photography. Is a photo of a fruit bat art? Is a portrait of a baby art?

"Maybe that manifests itself in my thoughts when I see a nudity photographs."

 

Of course it does, guilt is one of the most powerful emotions you can instill in a person.

 

"to me some of these photos seem like infatuations with the opposite sex"

 

of course it is! Withthe caveat that what you say is true if iamges of the "opposite sex" (strange that you can't say "women", you mhave to instinctually make half the human race be in opposition to you) turns you on... it works for me,but it doesn't work that way for everyone.

 

"nothing more than pornography"

 

Pornographic for you , because it incites lustful thoughts of the forbidden in your head.

 

"Are nudity photos art? Why or why not?"

 

It depends o nthe specific photo and on the specific viewer, end of story. Do you think Michelangelo's statue of David is pornographic? what about Bottacelli's (sp?) painting of "Venus"? What about "the Dinner Party" by Judy Chicago?

the fact that this topic is perpetually raised and discussed and argued and many nudes are

posted (good ones,bad ones,artistic and humurous) - should be more than enough evidence

to everyone (including puritanical Americans) that they are WORTHY !

Yes ! Naked bodies are cool !

I'd also like to point out Juan That no one is making you look atthem. you are lookign and are oftened, well whose responsibility is that/ There are a lot worse things in the world than the human flesh as God made it. Let's try to solve those problems first before getting back to worrying about nudes and peole looking at them.

Even the Victorians could accept 'artful' nudity. Sometimes.

 

It's amazing, however, what a difference a few square centimeters of exposure makes for some people.

Poussin said: "Landscapes are beautiful--as a background for paintings of people." Same goes for photography. A good landscape is beautiful, but with a person in it, it becomes much more. People like to look at people.(This quote is not an attack on landscape photographers). I would no more like to put clothes on my models than the typical insect photographer wants to shoot a dragonfly in diapers and sunglasses.

I am a newbie(ish) photographer, and a woman, and I have been shooting a lot of female nudes lately. Mostly from women who come to me looking for an image that will capture their own natural beauty. Some say they want something to look at and remember when they are 80. Some are proud of the way they look, or others want me to make them "look" beautiful, even for a frozen instant. Of course, they want these image kept private, so I would never post them without permission. But I think there is much more to a lovely nude image than pornography. It can be that, or it can be so much more...in these days of anorexia and social pressure it's nice to see women affirming their own sense of beauty and self worth.

Ellis,

 

the (sp?): Botticelli.

 

everything else: absolutely.

exhibition in london at the moment -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7045772.stm

Jeez, I'd just love to get that "dragonfly in diapers and sunglasses".

<p>Wow, lots of responses in such short time! Hmm. . . </p>

<p>Ellis, to be clear I can make the distinction between women and men; I chose not to since nudes are not specific to women. I say "opposite sex", because I am a male, and some here are female, this term better covers both genders to all who post in the discussion. To be honest you made the distinction, not me. And I do not find nudes offensive (if that is what you meant to type? <em>"you are lookign and are oftened"</em>), I see them and I think "bad, " but I do not react on that. Instead I am curious of the philosophy behind it. . . since this is. . . wait for it. . . the philosophy forum. . . </p>

<p>As for your answer, I believe that it is definitely an individual-specific taste, hence my post. I wonder why it is that "you" as an individual believe nudes are an art form? Josh, JDM, Bruce, and Kelly all bring up good points. Myself, I see some very beautiful nude photographs, while others seem rather tasteless. From what some of you are saying, a pornographic magazine can be art. </p>

<p>Josh, I like how you compare this concept to photos of animals and children. In essence they are the same, but I say that, because we are raised with the idea that nudity is wrong, they are different. This is strengthened by the taboo nudity magazines. The human body is, by society's norm, private and clothed. But when it is behind a lens or a canvas, it is art. Kelly brings this idea to the table with women being so comfortable with themselves they will allow a photographer to record the most private of privates. While this is great to hear in a world where paper thin is good, I still ask: is it art? </p>

<p>Ok, I'm sorry everybody, I'm off my soap box. You can see that I think WAY too much about these things. I am very much into human interaction, couple that with my hobby in photography and you get the paragraph above. Anyway, continue with your responses, so far, it is very interesting. </p>

Juan,

 

Thank you for your corrections. But I never said or wrote that <I> I as an individual believe nudes are an art form.</I><<P>Photography is an art form, sculpture is an art form, music wwritten or performed is an art form, painting and drawing are art forms, dance is an art form, literature is an art form.<P>Inside those forms there is a lot of room. Some photographs of nude subjects are art, and some are only smut. Most photographs of the nude human form nudes are really just really boring cliches no matter how well executed , in fact the artier they look they more clichesd and boring they tend to be. <P>Is your question really: "Why do people like to photograph naked people"? Is it "Why do people like to look at naked people?" or is it "Why do we find making and looking at photographs of naked people so fascinating?"

I enjoy good photography, and nudes are interesting to see the photographer's perspective

and work. I'm always curious to notice the differences between photographers and especially

between men and women photographers, to see if there is a difference in their images,

perhaps from their experience and gender. Look a Leonard Nimoy's recent work of nudes of

large women. Makes you think and see differently than most photographers do with nudes.

I read somewhere that the purpose of art is to ennoble the beholder. Now lots of people might not agree with this, and also we have to explain exactly what we mean by "ennoble." Nonetheless, if we accept this definition, it simplifies things a great deal.

 

When you look at a nude, do you feel ennobled or ashamed? If the former, it is art. If the latter, it is pornography.

 

Acknowledging that some people might feel ennobled, and others ashamed, by looking at the same image.

Allan--

 

I'll have to disagree with that definition of art. I wonder if you remember where you read it. Of

course, there have been many definitions of art provided throughout the centuries. Most of

them don't work for one reason or another. It would take volumes to say what art is. I won't

do that. The problem with art as "ennobling" is that, no matter how you define that term, it

implies elevating, uplifting, or somehow dignifying. There would seem to be a value

judgment to go along with "ennobling." I think art can denegrate, soil, and be ignoble.

Fred: Maybe we should start a new thread. In the meantime, can you cite some examples of art that denegrates, soils, and is ignoble?

Fred: I think maybe it was Aristotle who defined art that way. Something about catharsis, meaning purification.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ">Serrano's Piss Christ</a>

<p><p>

<a href="http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/MONASV12.htm">Duchamp's Mona Lisa</a>

Nudes = no clothes = no warmth => oh so cool.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis">Catharsis</a>

<p><p>

As the article above seems to confirm, I think Aristotle's use of "catharsis" in the Poetics is

in good deal a reaction to Plato's view of art. Plato felt that art's danger was that it was

representative. A representation of a thing is twice removed from Reality (the most Real

entities being the Forms). For example, a painting of a chair was simply a representation

of a chair in the world. The chair in the world was simply a representation of the Form of

Chair, the Ideal Chair.

<p><p>

I think Aristotle had more use for art than Plato, and saw it as a means of relieving

passion, really more in line with purging oneself of excess and potentially dangerous

emotion than any kind of purification. If Plato is the early Greek Idealist, Aristotle is his

Pragmatist counterpart. Aristotle's was a pretty down-to-Earth view of things, not one that

sought to ennoble.

<p><b>Fred</b>, I've heard the quote about the role of art as being that of ennobling us before. I can not recall the exact location and I can't quickly find it through Google. That phrase is alluded to in the book description for <A HREF="http://www.amazon.ca/History-Modern-Art-H-Arnason/dp/013184069X"><i>History of Modern Art</i>></A> by H.H. Arnason on Amazon. I have that book and have read most of it. Maybe that idea is referenced in it. I'll try and get a chance to have a look.</P>

 

<p>I also agree that I, personally, don't think that is the role of art or that art has to ennoble us to qualify as art. But, a separate posting on this topic is in order.</P>

<p><B>Fred</b>, I found it. It is Schiller -- which explains why I couldn't quite find the exact phraseology due to translation differences.</P>

 

<P>I still can't find anything really good about it online -- but, you could try <A HREF="http://www.answers.com/topic/friedrich-schiller">HERE</A> under Aesthetic theory.</p>

<p><B>Fred,</b> I found it. It is Schiller -- which explains why I couldn't quite find the exact phraseology due to translation differences.</P>

 

<P>I still can't find anything really good about it online -- but, you could try <A HREF="http://www.answers.com/topic/friedrich-schiller">HERE</A> under Aesthetic theory.</p>

Ian--

 

Amazing you should mention the Arnason book. I valued it greatly when I studied it and was

recently looking and can't find it. I must have lent it to someone and never gotten it back. Will

have to get a new copy. Thanks for the reference.

 

--Fred