Fine Art Fetish Photography

Oxymoron or no?

First of all Ray, it is good to see you back again. I thought you had dropped off of the planet.

 

Oxymoron? I think not. Even though fetish photography isn't my bag I cannot deny that there has been some excellent artists of the genre; photographers who few could deny the fine art aspect of much of their work. Helmut Newton for example, or China Hamilton. Besides, what might be seen as fetish by one viewer might be no more than tasteful erotica to another and the rankest of pornography by a third. Kink, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Fine art can be found hiding in just about any category you can think of, with the possible exception of over-saturated sunsets, bugs on flowers and those godawful Photoshop "paintings".

Glad to be back. My new job has had me very busy.

 

I mainly just want to see others views on the subject.

 

I have done fetish photography many times, myself. I don`t do the cheesy looking type either. In fact, the feet shots in my bodyscapes folder are from a fetish shoot.

 

I have often debated wether I should or should not post other more obvious fetish photographs here. Some of it has actually been featured in a couple gallery exhibits including one juried exhibit.

It might be just me Ray, but I do not see your bodyscapes as fetish photography anyway. Maybe it's just the way I would define the term, but I would say fetish would contain essential elements other than the natural human body. A beautiful bodyscape is just that, the unadorned celebration of God's greatest creation. Nothing kinky about that.

Fine Art - food, fetish, nudes, nature, industry.

 

Mix and match as you please.

Well, Andre, the shots themselves are not done as fetish shots. They, as well as the black and white shot of the model sitting on a table with a window in the background, are just shots I made during a shoot that had the main goal of fetish photographs.Same model and shoot, in fact I just happened to see the lines her feet and such made and had to shoot them. They DO seem popular among the foot fetishists :)

are kink and fetish the same? and why would one need something other than a body part for a fetish?

<i>and why would one need something other than a body part for a fetish?</i>

<p>

Why would one need something other than water to drink? A Fetish is just what turns one's crank, so to speak. Where's the fun in everybody having the same fetishes?

is there any subject/content that has not found it's way into fine art? some fetish art qualifies

by any definition - provocative, challenging who we are, beauty, historical documentary,

taboo.

funny, I dont recall stating we all needed the same fetishes.

The point was fetishes can be body parts as well as outside objects.

 

its all subjective.

I always disliked the term "fine art photography". Fine print is more precise and leaves the definition if it is art or mere technique to the viewer.

 

Stefan

I think Stefan has hit on something we may over look. To me its similar to a wonderful print of a poor image or a poor print of a wonderful image. Its good to debate the shade of gray or or even grey for that amtter.

Maybe I'll paint up my toenails and snap off a roll of my feet with some out of focus trees in the background... My 90mm Tokina ATX gives great bokeh. Fine art? I think it depends less on who's looking than who's buying.

I think there are some 'fetish' photographers that are outstanding, and there photos qualify as fine art (whatever that means exactly) by a mile. Doris Kloster is one of my favorites. Kloster shoots quite a bit of hardcore bondage, and manages to get such brilliant shine off latex, and catches her models at ease when they are totally trussed up, not an easy feat. I also really admire Elmer Batters work, especially his black and white stuff from the late 60's and early 70's. Bettina Rheims does color brilliantly, and the tones of her photos is unique, you can pick them out a mile away, which I think is the hallmark of a good photog, or any artist for that matter.