Jump to content

can you tell us what an original nude is?


Recommended Posts

From the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=1693551">POW discussion</a>:<p>"<i>To Tom Meyer, can you

tell us what an original nude is? Can you put a link of a original

photo.net nude here? Or just explain what you an original nude must

be with words? What are you expecting from a nude photo?

</i><p>Mondini thinks I have demanded originality in that discussion,

when I have actually just asked for something other than the monotony

that Igor keeps so successfully reproducing. I won't tell any artist

what I think they should do, but have no problem discussing what they

have done. <p>So I've noted there, that the discussion that Mary Ball

has said is inappropriate for the POW might be continued here. Bob,

is it okay with you? Is this the "appropriate" forum?<p>I expect

of "a nude photograph" the same thing I do of all good art. To be

complex and somewhat ambiguous, I expect each person that encounters

it to have a slightly different response. I expect it to provoke new

thought and feelings in me just about everytime I see it. It should

reflect my values back at me through the devices of the artist,

contextualized by the subject and enhanced by the materials and the

manner of their manipulation, the cultural and social context of the

times in which it was made and in which context I view it.<p> Nudes,

still lifes, street photography, landscape, abstracts,

photojournalism, painting, sculpture, dance, prose, jazz. Art is what

I expect a "nude" to be. I don't expect it to be simple and

formulaic... t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<i>Bob, is it okay with you? Is this the "appropriate" forum?</i><p>

 

Bob only checks in when he gets complaints, I'm the moderator that's here most of the time. I think it's fine as long as there is real discussion rather than the pointless posturing that happens in so many threads. Maybe since Tom started it, that won't happen.<p>

 

The discussion that Tom references can be found

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1693551">here.</a><p>

 

My point of view on this is similar to Tom's. The vast majority of nude photographs are boring repititions of the same type of work, taken by men with men as the audience. They use a few specific body types and generally light them in certain ways. I can't find much of interest, nor do I particularly find them "original."<p>

 

There are sometimes discussions about photographs by men vs those by women. This is one area in which I find a very big difference in how the subject is handled by most women, as opposed to most men. I'd suggest <a href="http://www.florgarduno.com/preview/preview1_01.html">Flor Garduño</a>, for example, whose work resembles neither the Picture of the Week nor most nude photography by men. I'd also suggest Sally Mann as another whose work doesn't fit that "traditional" nude aesthetic (if it can be called that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tom point. The art under discussion NEEDS to be complex in order to

"trigger" different response in each viewer. The "invoked response" is going to be the

result of the viewer's differing backgrounds and experiences (educational and cultural).

 

All too often, a "set" formulation is chosen because of a preconceived notion of "how" its

going to cause the viewer to respond. Of course, this is determined by the desired

audience. A great example of "knowing and targeting a specific audience" is Playboy.

 

IMHO, a nude is a nude is a nude.... UNLESS it provokes new thought and feelings and

causes a viewer to challenge viewpoints and interpretations.

 

Good art NEEDS to challenge the viewer to stretch their mind and question the subject

matter. It NEEDS to pry open preconceived notions, inspire change, and to refreshen old

concepts and idea.

 

As Tom says, "I don't expect it to be simple and formulaic... "

 

How true!

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying Tom.<br>

If I try to analyze Igor work I can sumarize it with a few sentence: his models are nude, very strong (fitness queens) some even more strong than the average male, often faceless, uncomfortable poses to emphasize their muscles. He uses mostly b&w pictures, a square format. He has more models than locations (studio, empty room, old mine, lake, ...) The setings are minimalistic - a couch or a tool or a chain or ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is that photographs of strong women (though still feminine and nearly all pretty) is not a complexe idea enough? It is no more the model who is fragile and weak but those who watch to the photo.<p>

 

maybe I hadn't understand you fully and what you do not appreciate is that Igor work has not enough variety?<p>

 

That said I'm still an Igor fan ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of nude photographs are boring repititions of the same type of work

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But Jeff, if you look at your beloved street photography it is just a repititous and often quite boring. When was the last time you saw something unique in street photography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nude is a nude is a nude might be percieved similar to saying a pepper ia a pepper is a pepper. The reference is of course to the peppers and nudes by Ed Weston. There are good nudes, bad nudes, good peppers, and peppers that you eat. I agree with Grant : " if it is new to you, it is new."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To paraphrase a famous quote: "I don't know what an original nude is but I know when I see it"

 

There is some possibility that there is no such thing as an original nude. Perhaps the best you can go for is a nude that's less ordinary than the rest. Which begs more questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply can't stand the repeated assertion on this forum and 2 other forums, Leica and Street, that there can no longer be any originality in photography.

This is so narrow a point of view that the width of the view point can not be measured; it

 

is Wholly without merit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this need of being 'original' is such crap. its an egotistical ideal which strays one from seeing whats there, and deters from the moment of being, and becoming....whats truly original is without ideas...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On the other hand, it could be that once you've seen enough photos you get bored of the same thing over and over again. I don't think that has anything to do with one's ego.

 

I have no idea what you just said in the second half of your paragraph so I can't respond to it... suffice to say though, that you are most likely wrong :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Grant: the great quest for originality in fact is destructive to the process; whatever the Art form. Should Painters stop painting portraits because of the concern that their paintings might not be original. Ridiculous. Should Painters abandon historic, proven technique over a concern of not being original? Of course not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is important to the viewer of art should be: does this work MOVE me, does the object viewed create an emotional response ? The question should not be :is it Original? For the maker of the "art" the question should be was the process enjoyable, enlightening, did it accomplish what I desired the object to accomplish? Do I like it? Was the process enjoyable? Emphasis on the process!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weston's peppers weren't peppers, they were figure studies. <p>I have a great book that's called simply "The Body" and it deconstructs (forgive me) the genre in a very interesting way. From medical to erotic, the body as antagonist and as as a metaphor for the interior condition, each chapter has radically specific theamatic treatments of the human form. There are many images and approaches there (in that book) that I would call original... not in that the images are totally unfamiliar, but that they allow me to consider the same old body in a new way.<p> Mondini's comment about the viewer being the weak one reminds me of an image by a Scottish photographer here on photo-net (whose name escapes me) that is of a stripper on stage in a tent show. The image is taken as if from the vantage point of someone back stage and we see the body in the foreground with the audience wackin off in the background... now THAT was an original "nude" (Angus somebody, I think)... t
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that shows an unexpected lack of imagination on your part, Mr. Grant. I don't believe you, no matter what you say... I know what you think better than you do...<p>Back to Mondini's last comment about strong women and doesn't that change the equation. Well yes but very slightly. She's still as grant says, A NEKKID CHICK. Especially since this strong woman is really just using her strength as an added dimension to that repeated role as a supra-normal pleasure unit. Extra fitness is presented by Igor and others in the same way as extra large breasts, or super tan flawless skin or pouty red lips, or the hairless pussy... it's the supra normal sexual uber-specimen. Us poor testosterone based life forms are hardwired to respond to certain biological stimuli, and the advertising industry (and Igor) knows exactly which buttons trip those circuits. This relates to the comment in the POW thread about images designed to create disatisfaction with a normal life and desire for the unobtainable. Viewing the world as a consumer is the path to unhappiness. The seduction of the successful advertising image is based on your own feelings of inadequacy. "If I only had (that), then I'd be happy".<p> Joseph Cambell spoke about a really interesting experiment done with a type of moth that is an irridescent blue. The males are hard wired to be attracted to the blue-est female moth they can find. So the fun-loving scientists constructed a fake blue moth that was bluer than any actual female moth. The male moths clustered around the fake moth and ignored the real, but sadly less blue real female moths. This is why many men leave their wives and girlfriends home and go to strip clubs, this is why people love Igor's photos. They're incapable of overcoming the chemical trigger that is tripped by un-naturally large breasts, un-naturally red lips and artificially lengthened legs (the purpose of high heel shoes). We ignore "real" women, and flock to the unobtainable surrogate... t
Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps if the moth inside wasnt shooting the nude for the other moths then maybe you might find something a bit more. One that makes you think more and past the urges within. No, I dont have an example.

 

Jeff, thank you for the Flor Garduno link.

 

Careful about leaving those chicas at home fellas.

 

Knicki

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...