The Power and the Glory, Part II (see last May for Part I)

<p>Why does the photographic nude vary so greatly in its impact on us? More specifically, why do some <em>nudes </em>appear more <em>naked</em> than others?</p>

<p>As stated, the question is wide open to all kinds of interpretations and possible answers. That is fine with me, since I am about to start giving exams next week and do not expect to have time to contribute very much. I hope that the topic sustains itself and that the thread prospers sufficiently to provoke some new insights from other contributors.</p>

<p>Even so, I include here a few remarks of my own about one photo by Jim Phelps to show a bit of what I am getting at.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>"Jim, as you know by now, there are those who always want to claim that the enjoyment of the nude is driven entirely by sexual desire, repressed or otherwise, but the fact is that your photos always give me food for thought, and so it is that, though I might be attracted at first by the pure power of the image, I can then sit for a long, long time and analyze why I respond to this or that nude differently--and I do not have to be viewing the nude(s) at the time in order to be able to do so.</p>

<p>"Therefore I think that those who think that nude photography is about sex and nothing else are well wide of the mark--although perhaps again subliminal sexual motives do enter again in determining which intellectual issues we find to be most fascinating. Therefore I should have to be the first to confess that both nudity (female in my case) and sexuality do fascinate me--but I resist the notion that sexual fascination is the only factor operating when we find ourselves perplexed by the "power and glory" of the nude.</p>

<p>"In any case, as I said, the nude does not only entertain or titillate. Nudes (or at least some nude photos) also can and do make us think--some more than others. This one does make me think.</p>

<p>"The issue raised here, which I am going to transfer to the Philosophy of Photography forum as I did last May and June on a related topic (the public nude) is why some nudes appear more naked than others. Robert Graves' poem about "The Naked and the Nude" has addressed that issue, or at least forced us to think about the distinction.</p>

<p>"This photo does the same for me--it has made me think. I am a bit perplexed. This model shows no nipples, buttocks, pubic hair, or genitalia, and yet the overall effect is indeed one of nakedness, not mere nudity. This is admittedly a subjective assessment, and others might disagree, but at least in my case she seems terribly vulnerable in spite of showing less than what one might see at the beach--and in spite of her look of total insouciance.</p>

<p>"Well, of course she is naked and that is the end of that, some might say, but the sense of naked vulnerability seen here surprises me, given how little she shows of the traditionally emphasized erogenous zones. I might venture to add here that many nudes <em>qua</em> nudes can have a sense of <em>invulnerability</em>, by comparison. Even so, whether it is a matter of vulnerability v. invulnerability, or something else, I continue to be surprised by how images strike us in terms of their level of what I can only call not only vulnerability but also decency or indecency, in accordance with standard usage--not because decency or indecency ever inhere in the body itself, or in its representation.</p>

<p>"In any case, since you are one who has worked with nudes, I would be interested in what you have to say. I would also like to link to this photo on the Philosophy of Photography Forum so that others might have a go at this or related issues.</p>

<p>"I can only hope that I will not be subjected again to <em>ad hominem</em> remarks, as I was by a few commentators on last years "The Power and the Glory" thread on the Philosophy of Photography forum--and I am thinking of those who chuckled that it was all about sex and nothing more, and that that was the end of that. I will nonetheless take the risk of such because I believe that these are good theoretical issues that ought to be addressed--and because I believe that there might be some new insight to be gained by throwing these issues back into the public intellectual arena of that forum.</p>

<p>"Thanks again for your generosity in allowing us to comment on your photos in "The Power and the Glory" thread last year on the Philosophy of Photography forum. You have given us a lot to think about, which is not to deny that these images are very pleasing to look at as well."</p>

<p>The photo alluded to above is by Jim Phelps at the following address: http://www.photo.net/photo/8937273&size=md</p>

<p>Thanks to all in advance for responding. I hope that the thread will be deemed to have been worthwhile, when all is said and done.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Possibly along the same lines, here is the famous painting by Manet which shows the model/subject looking at the painter, which draws the painter more obviously into the photo.</p>

<p>In addition, there is some tension introduced here by the fact that the men are dressed and the woman is undressed, as well as by the fact that the position in which she is sitting would not be one designed to preserve her modesty. Indeed, it is her very indifference to the men, to the painter, and to the position of her legs (not obvious on this small version) which perhaps made the image scandalous to many persons: "How could she be so casually naked?! She is far beyond being merely nude!"</p>

<p>In any case, my original thoughts about vulnerability need to be re-examined.</p>

<p>Anyone have any thoughts?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Manet's "Olympia" likewise shows the model/subject looking straight at the painter, which probably contributed to its shock value in the culture of its day.</p><p><br></p><p>A better articulation of the question by other contributors would be appreciated. As some of us in philosophy like to say, "Don't expect us to get the answers right. We do well to get the questions right!"</p><p><br></p><p>So, if the thread morphs and the question changes, so be it. In a philosophical thread, how could it be otherwise?</p><p><br></p><p>Here is how I originally framed the question at the outset:<br></p><p><br></p><p>"Why does the photographic nude vary so greatly in its impact on us? More

specifically, why do some <em>nudes </em>appear more <em>naked</em>

than others?"</p><p><br></p><p>Well, if the question changes, then it changes. Rewriting the questions to fit our answers is how a lot of us got through graduate school.<br></p><p><br></p><p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Rebecca (the model) is not a submissive being, and I would be shocked if she would adapt to submissive standards and not be seen by looking away. I think those who have issues with women looking at the lens when they are nude quite possibly don't want the models eyes upon them while they see them in a state of undress. Why would it be more acceptable for her to look away? I find no sense in this theory.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find no sense in this theory.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What theory? Could you be a bit more precise for me. I am fairly dense.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I wonder how many would seriously say nudes are ONLY about sex and titillation? And how many fool themselves into thinking it's not about sex at all? People are often not up front or in tune when it comes to sex and nudity.</p>

<p>If nudes are not so much about sexuality, why do most men photograph mostly female nude subjects?</p>

<p>I am often <em>in part</em> motivated by sexuality and titillation <em>and not just when I photograph nudes!</em> That sexuality may or may not translate literally into the photograph. Sexuality and libido are strong drives in many human endeavors. Sexuality can be very involved even in my non-nudes.</p>

<p>It would RARELY IF EVER be the case that one and only one factor (e.g., titillation, sexuality) is at play in the motivation for or reaction to a photo. Most of us are more complex than that.</p>

<p>The body is expressive. Nudity can expose. It can break down barriers. It can also increase discomfort. It can bring out vulnerability. It can bring out confidence. It is multi-faceted, not singular. The exposure nudity affords can yield genuineness. It can also be a total fake and pretense. Nudes can be beautified and they can be gritty. Each can be effective.</p>

<p>I fully agree with you, Fred, but, if you will recall the original "The Power and the Glory" of last May and June on this forum, several commentators made precisely that claim--and were apparently quite serious about it. Those contributors would (I presume) have recommended that we not analyze nude photography/painting at all, which would be quite silly.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I fully agree with you, Fred, but, if you will recall the original "The Power and the Glory" of last May and June on this forum, several commentators made precisely that claim--and were apparently quite serious about it. Those contributors would (I presume) have recommended that we not analyze nude photography/painting at all, which would be quite silly.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I take those commentators you refer to with a grain of salt and don't think they represent anything but a tiny few. Some like to come to the Philosophy forum and tell us not to analyze stuff. It usually doesn't have much sway. In any case, I tried to address other issues in my post that are of value.</p>

<p>@Fred ~ why do most female photographers also photograph female models then? they can't all be lesbians, i know i'm not. just wondering what you might think about that. </p>

<p>Money?</p>

<p><strong>Zoe</strong>, good question. Maybe photographing the female nude has become the more traditional thing to do, though the Greeks certainly weren't shy about portraying male nudity. I wonder if it has to do with more men (at least non-ancient men) being less inclined to put themselves into a position of posing nude, objectifying themselves. Could there be something passive to posing nude that men shy away from? Not sure. But I imagine it has something to do with culturally defined gender and sexual roles.</p>

<p>Some will say it's because the female form is more inherently sensual. It's something I'm willing to consider but not something I'm convinced of.</p>

<p>Maybe guys are hornier. Again, check out the PN nudes section . . . much horniness in evidence . . . not that much art.</p>

<p>I was not trying to be flippant, Zoe. I assumed that many female photographers photograph female nudes because of the greater market for them, as opposed to male nudes.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I was not trying to be flippant, Zoe. I assumed that many female photographers photograph female nudes because of the greater market for them, as opposed to male nudes.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I have been on PN for many years and never double-posted. Now I have done it twice within a few minutes? What am I doing wrong? Is it a machine error?</p>

<p>@Lannie What market? There's no market for figure photography in the United States at least. So, that's not a good analogy either.<br>

Why do you think women would be photographing other women? Think. </p>

 

<p>Here is one by Francois B that is quite explicit but is somehow more modest than the one by Jim Phelps, in my opinion. I am back to my original question now: why does the subject in Phelps photo, which shows so little, seem more naked (at least to me) than the one in the Francois B shot, which shows pretty much everything?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you think women would be photographing other women? Think.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zoe, maybe the curved lines are inherently better or more interesting apart from sexuality. I was hoping that, as a woman, you could tell me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>leave sex out of it and think about why. don't compare women to lines and curves and think about why.</p>

<p><strong>Zoe</strong>, both Lannie and I have been thinking . . . and sharing our thoughts with you . . . and doing so pretty genuinely. Your turn.</p>

<p>The presence of a naked human doesn't reduce the image to "a nude" (the way Manet's image has been reduced here). </p>

 

<p>Let's try this out on another form that is commonly a subject of a bodily response. Paraphrasing Landrum Kelly:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... as you know by now, there are those who always want to claim that the enjoyment of the roasted chicken is driven entirely by ones appetite, repressed or otherwise, but the fact is that your photos always give me food for thought, and so it is that, though I might be attracted at first by the pure power of the image, I can then sit for a long, long time and analyze why I respond to this or that roasted chicken differently--and I do not have to be viewing the roasted chicken(s) at the time in order to be able to do so.</p>

<p>"Therefore I think that those who think that roasted chicken photography is about hunger and nothing else are well wide of the mark--although perhaps again subliminal hunger motives do enter again in determining which intellectual issues we find to be most fascinating. Therefore I should have to be the first to confess that both roasting (chickens in my case) and hunger do fascinate me--but I resist the notion that fascination with eating is the only factor operating when we find ourselves perplexed by the "power and glory" of the roasted chicken.</p>

<p>"In any case, as I said, the roasted chicken does not only entertain or titillate. Roasted chickens (or at least some roasted chicken photos) also can and do make us think--some more than others. This one does make me think."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I may stop to admire my the full, plump thighs and substantial breasts of my roasted chicken, I cannot seem to suppress my carnal response. I drool. My stomach rumbles. Even if the chicken is wearing glasses.</p>

<p>Of course, you <em>are</em> a chicken, eternally the subject of mans' appetites, your view is somewhat different, even when they insist that they are only admiring your "lines" and your "form." Personal experience, starting at birth, all of history, psychology, and social customs, etc. etc. does tend to make one a wee bit doubtful.</p>

<p>When I see a chicken in a swimsuit, I think swimming. When I see a chicken all plucked, I think dinner.</p>

<p>Few figure photographs that I see I would classify as successful. There seems to be little reason to make them The statement seems to be "There's a naked (women / man) available in front of my camera so I'm taking a picture." When you look at classic art or classic figure photographs, there's a reason the artist is making an image or sculpture of the person. I have tried making figure photographs, and have generally failed miserably, precisely because I cannot find the reason for making the photograph. </p>

<p>The statement that nudes entertain or tittilate I find totally false - the best figure photographs use the human body as a means of expression to say something that cannot be expessed in any other way. This <a href="http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/496.html">photograph</a> is an example of what I'm talking about. Likewise, this <a href="http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/73264">photograph</a> is not about sex. </p>

<p>But, can someone tell me - what's the point of the referenced photograph by Jim Phelps? I could live the rest of my life and not have missed anything by not viewing it. </p>

<p><strong>Julie, </strong>that was a an elegant, funny, and illuminating post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"why does the subject in Phelps photo, which shows so little, seem more naked (at least to me) than the one in the Francois B shot, which shows pretty much everything?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps the words contrived, cliche, manufactured, banal, trite, and irrelevant may help you define the one that seems "more naked."</p>