davidnoblephotography Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Most nude photography involves a female model, and is the work of a male photographer. Obviously, pictures of the naked female form is, on the whole, more appealing to men than it is to women. What I would like everyone's opinion is this: Do you think that nude photography is basically there for the titilation of the viewer? I have taken several nude photos - always of girls, and I am the first to admit that while I regard my work as art, I do enjoy working with a pretty girl who is in a state of undress, and I don't accept the notion that a man can look at a photograph of this nature without thinking sexual thoughts - unless he's gay, of course. I completely understand the difference between a pornographic image and a fine art image, but I reckon that they are basically both there to instill the same feelings, but in different ways. DISCUSS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoewiseman Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I'm a female photographer who shoots nudes, so I really don't know what you're talking about. Other than admitting that you might be a GWC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 If not for the "sex" aspect, nude photography would not interest us any more than any other artful photography. Which is to say, some would love it and some would think that shots of puppies were more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share Posted September 19, 2007 What's a GWC ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoewiseman Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 GWC = guy with camera one can look at a flower and recongize the beauty without getting arroused, why can't one do the same with a woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share Posted September 19, 2007 Hey, I guess I am a GWC, but I reckon I take good pictures. Just wanted to start a debate here, not get labelled a pervert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share Posted September 19, 2007 Zoe, you can't have sex with a flower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff bishop Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I completely disagree. I happen to think that the feminine shape is beautiful, worthy of good well placed lighting to emphasize the shape, texture, and lines. Fine art nudes are about fine art. Pornography and erotica are about sex. I think the problem/confusion here lies in the puritan heritage of the US. For instance, here in the US it might be a "topless beach" where in the rest of the world it's simply a beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share Posted September 19, 2007 Jeff, do you think of the male form in the same way when it comes to photography? If you don't, then I think I may have a valid point here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schwartz6 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Look at www.hackelbury.com -- Allan Jenkins' portfolio -- there is indeed a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann1 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I agree with Jeff Bishop. Enjoying the feminine shape has nothing to do with perversion, quite the opposite. Men like woman's body shape, that's totally natural, otherwise... Well, none of us would be here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnoblephotography Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Yann, are you saying that men don't appreciate pictures of men in the same way that they appreciate pictures of women? That's exactly what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann1 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I did enjoy a few times, at some point, pictures of men for the technical skill of the photographer, and the overall impression of the shot (like it was telling a story). But you're right Dave, generally speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucecahn Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I have been working from a live nude model since 1960. I admit that in the beginning there was a sexual attraction, but after a few years that fades down to a very minimal level. It is much better to think about the form and composition of the picture than about the sexiness of the model. I have worked with male models as well but no longer do so because many of them are gay and sexually agressive. It is good to work with work with a male & female couple, but that is expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beepy Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Zoe - I had to look up GWC - sheesh. <p> Ah, screw this thread. Zoe - your work is gorgeous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david hibberd Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 "Obviously, pictures of the naked female form is, on the whole,more appealing to men than it is to women." From my long experience of life drawing classes the vast majority of women far prefer to draw other women. Interesting thread btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 "Zoe, you can't have sex with a flower..." Human nature being what it is , I'm sure it's been tried. Robert Mapplethorpe made some incredibly erotically charged photographs of flowers. Photographing nudes is of course partially an erotic act and an act of power ("I got someone to display their naked flash to me") . Displaying your photographs of nudes is both an erotic act and an assertion of power ("Hey you! Look here! I got someone to display their naked flash to me! I bet you wish you had done it"). Whether a photograph of a nude person should be considered art is a different subject and has to be considered on a photograph by photograph basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david hibberd Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 "Photographing nudes is of course partially an erotic act and an act of power" what utter tosh, particularly the reference to power. Most models I work with have never posed nude before and their invariable reaction at the end of their first session is how empowering and self fulfilling it is for them. This sort of pc claptrap really does make me despair of the way things are now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 "one can look at a flower and recongize the beauty without getting arroused, why can't one do the same with a woman?" Aaahh, because of an obscure thing called genetic reproduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schwartz6 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Bruce -- having trouble getting to your web site...is there a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I agree with both of David Hibberd's posts. Every time I've photographed a woman nude, it was her idea. And, to a large extent, women seem more interested in photos of other women (clothed or nude) than in photos of men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 "Most models I work with have never posed nude before and their invariable reaction at the end of their first session is how empowering and self fulfilling it is for them." And for you too, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff bishop Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 > "Jeff, do you think of the male form in the same way when it comes to photography? If you don't, then I think I may have a valid point here..." Yes I do. The fine lines and delicate shape of the female contrast beautifully with the sculpted muscular shape of the male. Both are to be admired. (Kind of wish my shape was muscular and sculpted, however I'll have to settle for soft and paunchy). In either regard, I'm not real comfortable with erotica nor pornography. I will hang fine art on my wall with no hesitation whatsoever. (Two of the best photographs in my house are from my good friend Peter Crowley, who shoots mainly fine art). The art would have to interest me, and meet my own personal standards of being tasteful. Blow-ups of genitalia don't meet those standards regardless of sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 "The sculpted muscular shape of the male" is the given and accepted paradigm, and only a very small bit of the potential in shooting male nudes. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neesha_lin1 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Dear dave. I am a male and yes sometimes a photograph of a man can be as impressive as a beautifully made female boddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now