Jump to content

Proposition: All nude work is gaspingly 'wunderbar.' All images are worth displaying. True of False?


Recommended Posts

<p>Photo.net identifies itself as "the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers." - <a href="/info/about-us">http://www.photo.net/info/about-us</a><br>

<br>

It's probably for that reason that we see images reflecting the ratio of experts to neophytes in real life. Members are not obliged to meet some arbitrary standard with their uploads, and because they upload images for their own reasons and not ours, I think it's important to put into context and understand their motivation and objective for their postings, as well as our own. </p>

<p>If we find ourselves offended by image postings regardless of genre, then perhaps we've outgrown a site that once helped us engage and develop ourselves. No student stays in school forever, and advanced members playing the part of mentors are probably ineffective if they become frustrated by the system. </p>

<p>That, of course, only looks at the situation from a "peer-to-peer educational system" perspective, and we shouldn't ignore the obvious, that this is also a social site where like-minded folks congregate to share and engage as people without the distinction of class, educational background, personal wealth, or professional expertise.</p>

<p>Maybe we shouldn't take the whole "critique" thing too literally, or indeed too seriously, and recognize that there is a middle ground where mentoring/learning can takes place as well as accommodate the social aspect that is equally important. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On standards for what it is worth. I once took a class at UH Continuing Ed given by a professional portrait and wedding photographer. We had weekly assignments, brought slides where the teacher would flash them on a screen and make a brief comment and maybe allow some brief discussion. Most of the comments were brisk and pretty impersonal. Usually this: " There is nothing there." ( w/ a click and on to next slide). Everyone got to show their work even if this character, a Master Photographer and kind of jerk said "nothing there." For the shooter there was obviously something there. With digital everything is "there." Praise is safe. Praise without definition is worthless.<br>

I felt that the "nothing there" deserved a reason if it is worth presentation. Or the learning experience was only half. I learn from my failures as well as once in a while successes. And disagreements have got me to take a different slant on a lot of things image wise. As in the POW discussion. Which is friendly mostly.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gerry, my take on "praise" is in fact for the most part a social acknowledgement, or a simple "I like it".</p>

<p>Delivering a critique might be the easiest part especially for a skilled wordsmith, but to be effective, it takes no less than a masterclass to expand ones comment to the extent that it becomes actually useful to a motivated learner, and PN's format doesn't accommodate that, nor is it practical. </p>

<p>"Nothing there" might be jerky, but it says enough that an insightful learner should be able to deduce its meaning. "It lacks expressiveness" might be the next level critique, but that's only useful if a learner understands what "expressive" means. We can go further in gradation, but the burden should be equally shared by both the "teacher" and learner if learning is to take place. </p>

<p>It's my opinion that a motivated learner will learn regardless, and there is something to be learned regardless of the comment or its quality because it sure beats no comment at all, but even then there's arguably something to be learned. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You'll never, ever, get a site that gives thoughtful and useful critiques on female nudes on a general interest site like photo.net unless you restrict them to only those given by women. And most women probably don't want to critique them. So either way you're not very likely to get anything useful. It's just a fact of life.</p>

<p>The critiques on Landscapes aren't much better either.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Most of the comments were brisk and pretty impersonal. Usually this: " There is nothing there."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be my critique on most photos I see while using the dreaded semi-anonymous rate photos queue on photo.net. I've actually considered using a keyboard macro to more efficiently write variations of "I'm not seeing anything here to critique. What did *you* see when you decided to post this photo of (a) a nekkid chick with her butt in the air or breasts poked out; (b) your hundredth photo of some guy riding a bicycle; © a weirdly cropped narrow vertical of a young woman's butt, with her husband or boyfriend cropped out; (d) some sad dude passed out or sleeping on a park bench or posed ironically under a billboard advertising youthful prosperity; (e) a hummingbird doing whatever the hell it is that hummingbirds do every few minutes to survive being a damned calorie expending biological machine?"</p>

<p>But my most used keyboard macro critique would be "Do you really take enough good photos to max out the subscriber limit of four requests for critiques/comments/compliments every single day?"</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with the critiques/ratings system that couldn't be cured with a little self discipline, specificity in critique requests, and willingness to graciously accept and acknowledge actual critiques rather than spoonfuls of sugar.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been a subscriber to Playboy nearly 60 years. I used to keep them all, which was tricky during my 20+ years in the

military, which involved about a dozen moves. I had to do some fast talking to get them shipped as "professional"

literature. I know you all will scoff at my next statement. I get Playboy mainly for the articles. Playboy introduced me to

James Bond, in 1959, with a short story, "The Hildebrand Rarity". I went to the base library, and found two books written

by Ian Fleming. The Playboy Interviews are first rate. Jimmy Carter and Richard Dawkins and many others. I went for

10 years where I didn't even look at the centerfold. I do now, because they have apparently eased up on their habit of

having every model have surgery to place two basketballs on their chests. I have yet to find a single man who

appreciates what I call "bolt-ons".

 

I was not up to attending my 60th high school reunion this year, clear across the country. It combined the classes of 53,

54, and 55, for obvious reasons. I did receive a copy of the program, which of course included a "In memory of" section.

Reading the list was extremely depressing. A person on the list for 55, was a cute young lady named Phyllis Sowicki. In

July 1963, she was the centerfold under the name Phyllis Sherwood. Playboy was so chaste in that era that the article

included photos of her mother, fully clothed, of course. That issue is somewhere in my garage, but so is the Library of

Congress. You young-uns may be surprised to learn that in late 40s and 50s, it was not unusual to show nude women in

Life and National Geographic, and the monthly photo mags.

 

If you think photographing nudes is easy, try to talk your wife or girlfriend into posing, and if you are successful, unless

you're a pro, you both will be disappointed, no matter how attractive the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good display of nude work by Svetlana, martin. She has unusual sensibility for her subject and I can enjoy her workmanship. Plus model rapport and unforced grace and delicacy. (I like them.) This one grabs me as a good example of charming female form. No ifs ands or butts.... Hey, why not one nude as POW and live dangerously, elvenvolk.....<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/12932653<br>

There is something <em>there</em> in short.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In any online gallery that features nudes, the nudes will be among the most viewed, most popular, and most highly rated. In other

words, if you desire high ratings and lots of hits, the subject of your photo is your most important choice.

 

2. The highest ratings in online galleries are typically granted to nudes and to images with hyper-saturated colors. The evaluation process

is not particularly rigorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had to search my memory banks to find a nude that I'd critiqued. I may have commented on two or three really offbeat or odd photos over the past 10 years or so, but I didn't mark them as favorites and at the moment can't even remember who the photographers were.</p>

<p>One I do remember was Terry Palka. She did some really unique and unconventional self portraits several years ago, many of which emphasized her body issues and struggles with scoliosis. Some just happened to be nudes but that was only incidental to the emphasis on her efforts to break the cliches. Unfortunately she deleted her portfolio from photo.net and elsewhere online, but her work was so stunning that it earned a cult following and some remnants of her work can still be found archived by fans. She really was something special, pre-dating social networking driven cliched selfies. There wasn't a hint of narcissism in her work and some was even quite humorous. It was quite frank and occasionally grotesque in the classic sense of the term, but never merely jarring or deliberately provocative in the sense of Joel-Peter Witkin's work. Since then I've seen a few other self portraits by people with similar body challenges but none has Palka's naif integrity and pure instinct for the nude self portrait - they're either too aware of the camera and adopting cliched poses, as if saying "Look how attractive I am despite my physical challenges", or too detached, as if taking forensic photos.</p>

<p>And there's <a href="/photo/11182634"><strong>this one</strong></a> that really isn't a nude so much as a photo of an exuberant, uninhibited nekkid gal. I liked it because it's not a fine art nude cliche.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dan, I think I'm of the Virginia gender AND location! :-)</p>

<p>Gerry, I, too, really enjoyed reading your nude critiques!</p>

<p>I admit I don't pay much attention to nudes. Most of what I see around me is people with their clothes on, going about life's usual activities. I suppose that's what interests me more. However, I do very much like Weston's pepper nudes, as well as O'Keefe's nude flowers and mountains. :-)</p>

<p>As for the main question, I think Bob probably nailed the answer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Virginia John, huh?. Indiana Jones. Nevada Smith.... I get it now. Actually I followed Phil Greenspun's urging-back in the gestation era of PN, for members to add their location in parenthesis and even their<em> real names</em> as the Amazon reviewers like to boast.... That was before TSA and Facebook and a more circumspect way of life... Clearly there is reason most do not. Too bad. I enjoy portrait work most and look at nudes through the lens of personal revelation, as well as the intimacy and sheer beauty of the human body. I am not alone, so it needs no elaboration. I am past the Playboy centerfold stage, but I turn my head to look at a shapely form. And will,while still breathing. I think my wife feels the same way about George Clooney....<br /> Hummingbirds sipping whatever they sip:I have real sympathy for birders. They never never can get a long enough lens and have to trek in mosquito country for their 'captures.' Which won't accept direction....<br /> I see a trend, have you noticed, to more bare "Warrior Women, type" sometimes with menacing dare I say almost Freudian weaponry/ blades/scythes. Now sorry sportsfans them is not my kind of nice nekkid ladies,- not <em>odalisque</em> types for sure :-)- kind of carry assertiveness a bit too far. Tattoos I am kind of getting used to, and piercings somewhat too, so I am evolving still and open minded i think..</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...