Jump to content

The Power and the Glory


Recommended Posts

<p>As a professional political philosopher, I like to think that I can ask anything. Even so, perhaps I am in trouble from the beginning simply for the title on this one. Still, I will stay with it, since I think that something significant is at stake here with regard to our psychological makeup--or our discontent with what passes for civilization.</p>

<p>Here is the question: How does one explain the power of what I can only call the "public nude"? Such nudes often do not derive their power, appeal, or fascination from traditional aesthetic considerations, nor even from their capacity to evoke lust. (If they did that, they would be among the highest rated nudes on a popular and accessible site such as Photo.net, but they seldom are.)</p>

<p>Rather (it seems to me) they challenge an entire social order, or possibly all social orders (although I would not want to claim that, as some have done). Some that I will toss out for consideration will hardly be deemed the "best" (to say the very least) in the traditional sense. Yet, in spite of their obvious limitations as works of art (also to say the very least), one feels the power of whatever it is that they evoke: a challenge to the social order, advancement of a utopian ideal, etc. For example, consider Brian's Grossman's women in graveyards or rail yards, such as this one: http://www.photo.net/photo/8109764 Or consider this one (a minor masterpiece to my eye, and not at all typical of John Peri's work, but strangely more compelling than his more popular fare, with the model sitting self-assured as if she were the CEO calling the board meeting to order): http://www.photo.net/photo/739025 .</p>

<p>There are numerous variations on what one could call the public nude, from Yuri Bonder's woman on a city street in the rain ( http://www.photo.net/photo/5023676 ) to Beepy's "non-public" shot which almost instantly evokes the thought that she is perhaps practicing for a public performance ( http://www.photo.net/photo/3251073 ).</p>

<p>The list is hardly meant to be exhaustive, but I hope that others can pick up on it and offer their own exemplars.</p>

<p>Why ask the question? Well, as George Leigh Mallory said about why he wanted to climb Everest: "Because it's there." In philosophy, too, the question is "there," or perhaps I should say "out there." "Out there" or not, we do ourselves no service to shyly turn away from issues that challenge not only conventional morality but society as we know it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Interesting question, Lannie. I believe the answer lies somewhere in the realm of what makes us vulnerable as human beings.<br>

Considering that clothing most likely originated as function first, fashion second, I think of the absence of clothing as a state of vulnerablity. Thus, when confronted by a nude (i.e., vulnerable) body, we are on many levels drawn to it. For example, What power enables this person to not feel shame? What power enables this person to not feel the elements (heat, cold, water, etc)? I think envy plays a part, too, as perhaps we'd like to be that bold!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Landrum, I find your question/premise interesting however your illustrations completely loose me. To a degree you seem lost in your own fantasies. Only two of the photographs have anything to do with photographing nudes in public or semi public places. To say there is anything public in the other two is totally a product of your own imagination, which you pretty much admit in your post.</p>

<p>A nude sitting at a table with bookcases in the background has no element of "public" unless you are fanaticizing running into her at Borders or Barnes and Nobel. And on the dancer photographed on white seamless hardly questions mores unless you are particularly fascinated with pubic hair.</p>

<p>A nude sitting at the head of the table at a Board of Directors meeting or a ballet dancer performing in the nude on a street corner or even before a filled auditorium would be interesting captures and worthy of your discussion.</p>

<p>Of the four illustrations, the nude on the train is by far the most interesting, however it is at best a semi public location. Generally not a lot of people hang out in freight yards other then a few yardhops, hobos and the occasional bull. The nude in the street strikes me more as a capture of an unfortunate deranged individual that evokes more pity than fascination or passion (yes, I read the comments, and more than half would have a go at it.)</p>

<p>Doug has given an interesting answer regarding the perceived vulnerability of the unclothed body. I am totally in agreement that the aspect of vulnerability can play an important role in creating interesting nude images. However, outside of the poor creature in the rain none of your illustrations, to me, express any degree of vulnerability.</p>

<p>The last two are very blatant. The woman at the table is looking the viewer directly in the eye with no sense of remorse, regret, shame, or discomfort. She is not a vulnerable person, she is blatantly nude. A man or a woman fully exposing their genital area can be seen as wanton or as free of the usual hangups but definitely not as a vulnerable person.</p>

<p>When it comes to photographs of public nudes, I am left to conclude something that Doug alludes to and you basically admit to; it is all in the eye of the viewer and whatever personal conflict/thrill they may or may not have themselves with the concept of being nude in public places more than it actually has to do with the image itself.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Landrum-<br>

Yes, stating your profession has almost nothing to to do with this question:) The power of the nude is only effective wherein nudity is a unique perspective. We do live in a post-victorian society where nudity does make a statement. That is changing though- have you seen the huge amounts of nudity and porn in the world? And really, does it need to be said- I like looking at the ladies naked- makes me think about sex baby! Come on, is it really that difficult? All these images are about sex- even if they are masked as something else. Unfortunately the nudes you have chosen are all quite poor in my opinion (as you stated)- if you want powerful images try looking at Helmut Newton for starters, or Albert Watson. You must have a pre-existing position on nudity and therefore are caught up with the images as "powerful".</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"...outside of the poor creature in the rain none of your illustrations, to me, express any degree of vulnerability." --Gary Woodward</p>

<p>Gary, with regard to those other shots, my clarificaiton would be that our perception is that we feel they <i>should</i> be more vulnerable, and yet they give no evidence of it, and so that makes us all the more fascinated. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How does one explain the power of what I can only call the "public nude"?</p>

<p>first and foremost there is a biological explanation. Secondly a lot of that is culturally defined. The way nudity in general is looked upon has undergone many changes throughout history. In art nudity has always been present. However, a lot of what we are presented with, especially on sites like this, can hardly be called art while the fascination is still there. Both with the photographer and (some of) the viewers. Despite that it's worth mentioning that a lot of people react very hypocritical towards nudes. That as well is culturally defined (at least to some extent).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>(In my response, I am NOT referring specifically to any of the posted links here. I am talking generally. I'm a little queazy about linking to other PN members' works, without first asking their permission, as examples to illustrate a sensitive philosophical point and to invite what may be a contentious dialogue.)</p>

<p>Good points, Ton. To build on that a bit, public nudes may have a titillation factor and all the attending hang-ups that go with <em>often</em> (not always) adolescent-like approaches to sexuality within the human species. Sometimes, in the photos themselves, the titillation factor and the sexuality issues are consciously addressed, which can be interesting; sometimes these factors are significantly utilized, which can be enlightening; sometimes these factors are dispensed with to move to a deeper place; and sometimes they form a trap of silliness and superficiality the photographer him or herself falls right into.</p>

<p>Then again, photographs of public nudes can be very similar to photographs of other things. They may have Power and Glory, significance, some sort of import, or they may simply be cute or "ironic" juxtapositions. Some bright red cars photographed in front of bright yellow buildings show something more and some show something less.</p>

<p>An expression of humanity or some view that will alter my way of seeing things or that will hit me in the gut is likely to feel more profound than the presentation of a simple curiosity. <!--EndFragment--></p>

<p>As far as traditional esthetic considerations, thank goodness not everything derives its power, fascination, or appeal from those, public nudes or otherwise. Part of aesthetics is moving beyond what is already aesthetical.</p>

<p>Most photos of nudes or public nudes I've seen don't challenge the social order. It's as hard to make a significant private or public nude as it is to make any other significant photograph.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"Most photos of nudes or public nudes I've seen don't challenge the social order"</em></p>

<p>Actually Fred I suspect that more often than not it's just the other way around because the social order, such as it is, mostly derives its opinions from a set base of preconceptions.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>We must first of all distinguish between the nude as an art form and the nude person when we make reference to "the nude," although I do not doubt that I shall sometimes gloss over this important distinction in what follows.</p>

<p>Doug, I think that you are wise to bring up the issue of vulnerability at the outset. This was for me a most risky kind of question and comment to pose--at least on a public site, with all of its limitations and degrees of maturity that are commonly exhibited by both commentators and posters of photos. We risk our souls (or, almost as bad, the misinterpretation of our souls) when we attempt to discuss such sensitive things, perhaps even more than when we display our bodies--although that last is debatable. Nonetheless, I have taken the chance and decided to post on this issue, in spite of the fact that persons are likely to read into my own commentary their own perspectives, or to attribute to me motives which are entirely their own. In any case, there is in the public nude (<em>qua</em> the artistic portrayal) a catalyst for tension that is typically evoked in the viewer, a tension between a sense of vulnerability and a sense of security. In actuality (as opposed to art), the nude figure in public (or the model being portrayed with some considerable degree of publicity) has chosen to be vulnerable, or else really does feel secure and thus not particularly vulnerable (not often a likelihood in this culture). The public nude <em>qua</em> nude person in American culture is almost not to be found, and yet I think that this culture does not quite know how to deal even with the artistic <em>portrayal</em> of a nude person in a public setting, much less know how to deal with an actual nude person in public. There is much, much more to be said on the issue of deliberate vulnerability, as well as the trust between artist and model, but for now I shall let these few remarks stand.</p>

<p>Gary, I would use the word imagination rather than fantasy if I were trying to write from your perspective, as best I can understand it. I am not "fantasizing" (much less "fantasizing about") anything, but I can certainly i<em>magine</em> the implications of the two photos that you have singled out as being about my "fantasizing." I am afraid that you have missed the boat, or at least the point, and I cannot respond point by point to every misinterpretation of what I have tried to convey. The fact that John Peri's model looks directly into the camera while sitting at a conference table surely brings at least one other person into the room.</p>

<p>Martin, my profession has "everything to do with it" from my perspective, if only because I teach at a church-related college, and I wish to make it clear that I am not here to do other than to gain understanding as I also try to seek clarification on some important moral issues--and they are moral issues, and political issues as well. I almost wish that you were correct in saying that "All these images are about sex- even if they are masked as something else." If that were actually true, then we could lay the entire nature v. nurture debate to rest vis-a-vis the issue of the sources of shame regarding the display of the human body. In fact, however, though sexuality is always relevant to such discussions, it surely is possible to discuss the causes of shame without pandering to the prurient interest--and it is my firm belief that one source of the power and fascination of the public nude as artistic portrayal is that it does raise all of those old issues about the sources of shame, whether that is the goal of the artist or not (and I doubt that it often is). That is, for me at least, the fact that the un-self-conscious public nude (as person, not artistic portrayal) is a great rarity in this culture--but hardly in all cultures--goes to the heart of the disagreements that are already beginning to be voiced, and which are going to come even more to the fore as this thread progresses (assuming that it is going somewhere).</p>

<p>Tom, I really find myself in agreement with what you are saying (at least so far), and so I shall not comment further on what you have said right now. This thread is, after all, not really mine, and after a short while no one is going to be answering me so much as each other, which is as it should be, in my opinion. My opinion is finally irrelevant, and I do not claim to have answers. In philosophy one does well to get the questions halfway correct. If one failes at that, at least one might have the chance of having stimulated thought on an important topic. I shall be interested in seeing not only what persons' responses are, but in how they rephrase and re-frame the question. I am comforted somewhat by the now near life-long realization (on my part) that persons who respond critically to the ideas of another tell us much more about themselves than they do about the person being critiqued, or even the ideas of fhe person being critiqued. In any case, philosophy is no field for thin-skinned people.</p>

<p>Fred, this brings me to your comments, since in my own area of moral and political philosophy, almost everything is a volatile topic, or has the risk of going off in a direction that can quickly become volatile. I typically feel pretty good that, at the end of some classes, there are at least no dead bodies lying on the floor, although there is often a lot of evidence of wounded egos, not to mention a plethora of enraged moralists who have had it all figured out since they were five years old--regardless of the topic, and the topic typically is not about nudity, or sex, or anything related to this thread. As I enter my sixty-fifth year, I do not worry too much anymore about my own ego, and I cannot worry about those who are enraged. Their hell is their own. I can now usually anticipate the range of reactions that I am going to get on most issues, and so I am rarely totally blindsided anymore, even by the obvious <em>ad hominem</em> remark directed at me. One comes to expect it after awhile in the classroom, and one can be darned certain that it will come when one ventures out onto the web on some predictably treacherous issues. One reason that I thought more than twice before deciding to post this thread was the realization that some persons might see <em>me</em> as being titillated by the issue--or by the photos themselves. I confess to all the human frailties up front, and I am not going to worry about it, nor claim to be other than what I am. Even so, given how much time I have thought about issues related to nudity, in both life and art, I felt that I had to take the risk, regardless of the consequences. I have yet to summon the courage, however, to hire a model and start posting my own nude photos. Perhaps by the time I am eighty years old I shall have summoned the courage to do so. I am quite sure that, if I do make it that long, I shall still find the issues just as puzzling, and the topic just as fascinating, although I will not say that the topic <em>per se </em> is titillating to me. The emotion that I typically feel when broaching these kinds of issues, in or out of the classroom, is a vague sense of anxiety--and sometimes not so vague. As for getting permission from persons before linking to their pictures, I consider their posting to a public forum to be sufficient <em>de facto</em> permission. Time is too precious for one to be either too timid or too senstive to what someone else may feel or think.</p>

<p>I wish that there were some way that I could anticipate and head off all the misguided remarks directed toward me which are likely to follow, but I know that I cannot. At some point the thread lives or dies on its own, since I might not even get back to it myself very often--and even then only to shake my head at times, I fear. So, let's make this less about me and more about the issues that I have tried to lay out. I'm just not that interesting, after all, but the issues are fascinating.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ilia, sorry to leave you out in my acknowledgments. The "glory" that was uppermost in my mind was the glory of the human form itself.</p>

<p>Indeed, a member of PN who has two <em>personae</em> here is quite modest as one "person" but much less so as the other one. The irony is that she is one of the most liberal-minded persons that I have ever met.</p>

<p>Ilia, you made me think of her by using that word "glory," for, when she directed me via e-mail to her pseudonymous site about three years ago, I guess, she said something like, "now you can see me in all my glory." Glory indeed!</p>

<p>Most striking, however, is that, liberal though she may be, she was not willing to be totally vulnerable--thus the two identities. It is simply too risky. God bless her. I hope that she is alright. Here she is in the flirtatious <em>persona</em> , and in that <em>persona</em> she really is playing a role, perhaps one that she would like to play in reality, perhaps not.</p>

<p>Don't even try to figure out her identity. She is too well made-up to be recognizable, even by her own husband:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1442954</p>

<p>I meant to say that she was not willing to go <em>public </em> at all, at least not as herself.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Doug, I have reread your first post, and I find that word "shame" again: "when confronted by a nude (i.e., vulnerable) body, we are on many levels drawn to it. For example, What power enables this person to not feel shame?"</p>

<p>Combined with the "Julia von Lippe" pictures that I just linked to in my previous post, I think that we see that the power of shame is enormous. The question remains: from whence does it come? Why cannot "Julia" and her alter ego be one? Is it from shame, or simple prudence? (I'm not buying the fig leaf story in Genesis.) Does shame come from our nature once we reach adolescence? From "nurture" as society and its mechanisms of socialization?</p>

<p>Although persons often have quick answers on this issue (the nature v. nurture issue), the issue is actually quite complicated to me. It is easy to say that we are taught shame and leave it at that, and there is a lot of truth there, but there is also the fact that the child typically does not feel much shame, but the pubescent teen does typically seem to begin to feel a lot more shame--at the very moment that he or she begins to feel vulnerability--and not just any old vulnerability, but sexual vulnerability, sexual awareness, and sexual self-consciousness. (Maybe that is the valid kernel of the Genesis story, after all: partaking of the fruit of the "tree of knowledge," and all that.)</p>

<p>Thanks again, Doug, for steering us in a constructive direction, in any case.</p>

<p>To Gary I can only say that the pubic hair in Beepy's picture would not be of particular note if one did not IMAGINE her so displaying it in a public performance--as she clearly is practicing for, but clothed and thus covered, no doubt. Yes, I do find pubic hair to be quite interesting and beautiful, Gary, as a matter of fact. (I have rather missed it of late as the fashions change.) Perhaps we could ask Beepy for his own interpretation, since it is his photo--and I personally think one of his most brilliant ones, not because the model had pubic hair, but because of the overall composition, not to mention the lighting.</p>

<p>John and Beepy's relationships to their models also bear examination. The very best nude photographers are able, I think, to put their models entirely at ease. This is me is Peri's real strength. Beepy seems to have the same gift. Google (on this site) Francois B and his "Frida" folder for yet another glimpse into the level of openness between artist and model that can be possible. No, that artist-model relationship most certainly is not "public," but therein lies the puzzle: why do only Brazilian "indians" and a few other tribes manage to preserve that sense of trust on the societal level and not just in pairs? Is such a level of trust in the face of potential vulnerability totally inconceivable in societies such as ours with their highly strucured work roles? (If so, then let us blame capitalism and the pervasiveness of bureaucracy that its extreme division of labor engendered after the Industrial Revolution.)</p>

<p>There are a lot of good questions here. You guys let me know when you get them all figured out. I'm going to bed now, to dream of what I do not know, although I can certainly imagine. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Doug, once again, <em>da capo</em> , your question at the outset intrigues me:</p>

<p>"when confronted by a nude (i.e., vulnerable) body, we are on many levels drawn to it. For example, What power enables this person to <strong>not </strong> feel shame?" (Emphasis supplied.)</p>

<p>If I were starting this thread again, Doug, this might be the way that I would use your question, but perhaps rephrasing it: "What power enables [some persons]<strong> NOT</strong> to feel shame?"</p>

<p>Or one could as easily ask, "Why are the rest of us so <em>burdened</em> by it?" Still, your version is true to the spirit of the thread: what is it about the PUBLIC nude that has such power--and such glory? </p>

<p>We are more than titillated and fascinated by the public nude, I think. Nor do I do think that Augustine was correct in seeing everything evil as a matter of love of "forbidden fruit." As my students in my political theory class last fall said, almost in unison, "Maybe persons just want to be free!" And they were talking about neither sex nor nudity! They were simply asking what it is that impels some persons to want to push the limits a bit further, if not break them entirely. They did not see it as an evil impulse. The urge to throw off limits gives me pause, admittedly, but I do see the force of their challenge.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>I'm sorry there has been a misunderstanding about my words. Being a philosopher myself, I can only ask you to re-read my post carefully and to see that I did not suggest YOU would be titillated by these photos. I am quite careful not to direct ad hominem attacks against posters. I was speaking of the general public and the motivations of many photographers. Had I wanted to say something about you directly, I would have addressed you directly and made clear I was speaking about you. You stimulated thoughts in me about why people would make such photographs and how others would view them. I don't know you and assume your motivation for the posting was to hear ideas on the subject of photographs of nudes in public. I offered you a serious response and, for some reason, you took it personally. It was not a personal response. The response has nothing to do with your ego or mine. If you can point to a phrase or sentence in my post that suggests YOU would be titillated by such photos, please do and I will explain what I meant and where you've misinterpreted. Otherwise, I'm afraid you've severely equivocated here. As far as the links to others' works, I don't believe you've broken any rules of the site because, had you, your post would likely have been removed. That doesn't stop me from expressing my hesitancy about the practice. Those opening words were the ONLY words directed at your own behavior here and they were less meant to suggest you did something wrong than to explain why I wasn't referring to any of the photos specifically. I did not want to suggest that any of THESE photographers were being purposely titillating any more than I wanted to suggest that YOU were being titillated. I was answering your question. I thought it a good question on other than an abstract topic. It is specifically photographic and, therefore, better than most questions posed in this forum.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Actually, Fred, you are one of the most trustworthy posters on the site, and so I never thought that you were attacking me personally for an instant. I am sorry if it sounded as if I might have thought so.</p>

<p>I was not reading each thread as well as I might when responding, however, and it is possible that I might (or might not) have been responding to someone else--or simply to the common charges about titillation that are often implicit (when not explicit) when discussions of anything related to sexuality and public nudity come around.</p>

<p>I only remember (at the moment) your raising the issue of linking without seeking prior permission, but I certainly did not take that as a personal attack. I certainly appreciate your sensitivities on that issue, and I definitely did not see you as accusing me of doing or saying anything out of a desire to titillate. The issue of "titillation" is always "out there" when discussing this sort of thing, however, and so I am constantly on my guard for anything that might suggest that in my work--as in my classes, although there, too, one is bound to be misunderstood. Students can also be quite brutal with the <em>ad hominen</em> remark buried in the written comments of student evaluations of professors, as you know too well.</p>

<p>What does disturb me in at least one of the posts so far is the suggestion that we ought to be documenting the actual display of public nudity in order to tap into the "power" of the public nude, or in order to stay on topic--by someone's definition and interpretation of what precisely<em> is</em> the topic. The topic, like all philosophical questions, keeps changing and being refined. The question will not even stay constant, much less our answers. The public nude is no doubt a challenge to prevailing mores, whatever else it might be, but its power lies in the <em>idea</em> that it conveys, in my opinion, not in its literal portrayal of instances of public nudity. (Again, none of this is directed at you in the least, Fred, but by now you know this.)</p>

<p>Let me give a few examples--although again let me emphasize that none of this is directed at you, Fred. Gary, for example, does seem a bit wide of the mark in saying this about Gary Bonder's (to me) brilliant shot: "The nude in the street strikes me more as a capture of an unfortunate deranged individual that evokes more pity than fascination or passion. . . ." I daresay that Yuri probably worked very hard to convey the <strong><em>idea</em> </strong> of a woman dancing naked in the rain in a public street--without yet letting his model be seen, at least not by many people. Gary seems to feel the need to take the photo literally, as if this were a documentary on Yuri's part, which is as preposterous for Yuri's photo as it would be for Brian Grossman's. Brian in particular speaks at times of the necessity of having someone else present during the shoot as a "lookout" so that one can carry off the shoot without arrest or other harassment. (Explaining an artistic idea to a cop can be a very difficult undertaking, I daresay.)</p>

<p>If one wanted documentation of nude persons in public places, then one would do better to get permission to shoot in a nudist colony or at Burning Man--not to mention do what Kent Noble has done in his quite incredible documentation of a Harely motorcycle rally, also on this site--and that page is not for the faint of heart where public nudity is concerned. That is one page which I will <em>not </em> link to, although it does a good job of documenting attitudes toward nudity in a subculture.</p>

<p>Jim Phelps also has a picture of a woman <em>portrayed</em> as hitch-hiking on a public road, when in fact it is a carefully set-up shot apparently on the safety and privacy of a farm:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6095949</p>

<p>I yet think that Phelps' shot conveys the <em>idea </em> of public nudity, though it was not really shot in public: there is no car coming down the road, for example, and she is not really hitching a ride, although doing do is what she portrays. It is for that reason that I also chide Gary a bit about his take on the Peri shot that I linked to. From the photographer <em>qua</em> photographer's perspective, Peri's shot was almost certainly part of a private shoot with only the photographer and model present. What it suggested to me was the<em> idea</em> of a woman presiding over a public meeting.</p>

<p>Again to Gary I would repeat that it is not about fantasy as fantasy while yet being about imagination--artistic imagination.</p>

<p>I could go on in this vein, but I hope that I have made my point for those who might not understand the point of the thread: the thread is less about portraying nudity in public than it is about presenting the <em>idea</em> of being nude in public, and yet even that does not sum it up or contain it, because the thread itself and what it means keep changing.</p>

<p>John Peri of late has toyed with this idea of the public nude by actually shooting nudes draped in long coats on busy city streets--with everything <em>but</em> the intent to display the body in public. The whole series reminds me of the Helen Hunt character's line in <em>As Good as it Gets</em> while she is being sketched nude for the first time: "We're being naughty here, pal." But are we, and is John? I will leave that for John to answer if he swings by here. My own take on John's photography is very different, and I think that the entire exercise is quite brilliant. Peri does an even better job, I think, with his "backstage" shots that show how casual nudity can be in private. One wonders what happened on the road to the promised land , such that it cannot be so in public?</p>

<p>Where Peri really shines (even for those who might not like his photos as photos) is in his plumbing of the artist-model relationship. The ultimate question always presents itself to me in this form: <em>How does he get these strange women to trust him--and so quickly?</em> One could follow that with another: How does he get his <em>wife</em> to trust him with this more or less constant parade of strange and naked women through his home? Yes, I realize that the culture of the artist is yet itself a subculture on the margins of society, but John manages to keep his foot in that subculture and yet manages go out and deal with culture as we know it in order to make a living. How does he do that? Well, of course, he does what "Julia von Lippe" does, more or less.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was cut off during editing. Here is what I was adding after the following: "Peri does an even better job, I think, with his 'backstage' shots that show how casual nudity can be in private. One wonders what happened on the road to the promised land , such that it cannot be so in public?"</p>

<p>I repeat, and continue<strong>: One wonders what happened on the road to the promised land , such that it cannot be so in public? Even the Bible starts with this question. Whatever did happen to "Adam and Eve," which is all of us, such that we have this incredible capacity to be so ashamed of our bodies? It is a profoundly religious or theological question, not just a philosophical one.</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /> </strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I greatly enjoy your comments. Chided or unchided, I hang with my original post. I find it incredulous that you post about photographing public nudity then post photographs to illustrate that have little or nothing to do with "public" beyond your own what you call your artistic imagination. I stick with fantasy. I am old enough to find it humorous when grown men attempt to intellectualize their adolescent responses to the naked female body.</p>

<p>You are still entirely off track and freely admit that the photographers you have referenced go to great lengths to avoid "public." Me thinks thou doest take thyself way too seriously. And that is not an attack, it is simply an opinion.</p>

<p>All four photographers have posted some worthwhile photographs. I seems I do not worship them or attempt to intellectualize enjoying them quite as much as you. And yes I am literal; she still looks more lunatic than joyful. Enjoy.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Landrum-<br>

"my profession has "everything to do with it" from my perspective"<br>

Your right, I apologize, I read your statement incorrectly. I still stand by my statement- it all has to do with sexuality- that is to say sex is the single greatest (most important) thing in our lives. It is what <i>makes</i> life. Just because sexuality is part of it, doesn't mean that sex isn't the over-riding statement in nudity and these photographs. We are animals after all and if we didn't have all this other stuff including your "morality" to get in the way, all humans would do is eat, poop and have sex- just like every other animal on earth.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gary, I do not worship these photographers. I use their photographs to make a point.</p>

<p>Here is the core of your response just above:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I greatly enjoy your comments. Chided or unchided, I hang with my original post. I find it incredulous that you post about photographing public nudity then post photographs to illustrate that have little or nothing to do with "public" beyond your own what you call your artistic imagination. I stick with fantasy. I am old enough to find it humorous when grown men attempt to intellectualize their adolescent responses to the naked female body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself, Gary, and, if you want pictures that are actually of public nudity, Google (on-site) Kent Noble and get thyself to his photos of a Harley rally. You'll see plenty of public nudity, but no power and cetainly no glory, I fear.</p>

<p>The point is about an IDEA, Gary, an idea. I'm sorry that you are having trouble grasping that.</p>

<p>Now I am beginning to see why Fred has suddenly disappeared. This forum holds forth so much promise, but so rarely delivers. Professional photographers like Fred increasingly avoid it, and some have never come near it.</p>

<p>I always do so with trepidation, and never more so than on a topic of such explosive potential. Still, I think that some persons will get the point, and so I thought that I would risk it. I'm still glad that I did.</p>

<p>Next time you want to psychologize, however, may I suggest that you turn your lens inward. If you were taking this course for credit, you would get an "F" for failing to get beyond a string of <em>ad hominem</em> remarks.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>You're seeing much more in these particular photographers' works than I do.</p>

<p>You mention the <em>idea</em> of public nudity and, with that, you have struck on something significant. For me, it's not about whether it was or was not really shot in public or whether these are actually documentations of public nudity (and I agree with you they are not). I execute and like posed shots as much as the next photographer. Before I read your thread here, I was considering posting my own about how and whether we use Illusion in our photographs. I believe Illusion can sometimes be used to express and convey deeper truths than can Accuracy.</p>

<p>So, if the <em>idea</em> of public nudity is at play here, where does it come in? I think it comes in <em>merely</em> in the content, and not in the execution or the vision. What's happening here, in my opinion, is that we are seeing representations of public nudity and being stimulated to philosophical thoughts about public nudity, shame, power, glory, etc. What I would prefer is if I actually could <em>see</em> some of these things or <em>feel</em> them emanating from the photos rather than from our philosophically curious minds. I like the way you think and I beleive the subject/genre/content of these photos moved you to bring up some compelling issues. I don't experience those compelling issues dealt with in the photos you reference.</p>

<p>That's why I brought up "curiosity." The nude on the train, to me, shows a curious juxtaposition. Something out of the ordinary. I don't find anything that shows me an intention to say something about power or glory. Like I say, it strikes me no differently from the numerous shots of smoking young men standing next to "no smoking" signs or old women walking below billboards showing beautiful younger women. These types of photos, for me, say nothing about the human condition and don't compel me to think beyond the surface of "cute." I see many "cute" or "strange" sights as I walk around San Francisco, believe me, probably more than in most other cities. I am only moved to photograph them when I feel something about the cuteness or strangeness is momentous or will somehow be transformed or transformative in the capture by the camera. Most of these shots seem more about the photographer having a keen eye for juxtapositions than the photographer expressing something deep. Even street shooting, to be interesting to me, needs to capture more than an incident. (Documentary may limit itself to that.) A good street shot needs to convey some sense of the significance of the shooter's perspective or, since some street shooter's prefer to leave their perspective out of it (which I respect), it should give me some context, some atmosphere, mood, transcendent aspect, something beyond just the <em>idea</em>.</p>

<p>Now that we're back to <em>idea</em>, there are many stunning shots of sunsets and landscapes. And with any of them -- good, bad, or indifferent -- I could start a deep and serious philosophical discussion about man's relationship to Earth and natural occurrences. How do we stand in relationship to the universe? Are we central or peripheral? Just another member of the biotic community or the steward of the ship? I can use those photos as the stepping off point for such a brilliant discussion. But that doesn't mean ANY of it is in the photos themselves. ANY photo can start a great discussion. As a matter of fact, it's long been a pet peeve of mine that many critique pages here are filled with some great discussions that are sparked by a particular photo. Photos of holocaust memorials, for instance, often spark lengthy and insightful discussions about evil, humanity, history, etc. And there will always be someone who comes along and tells the photographer it must be a great photo to have sparked such discussion. I don't see it that way. A very mediocre and poorly executed photo can spark a great philosophical discussion or debate. And because we come away from a photo with some important and distinctive ideas, does not mean those ideas were actually dealt with by the photographer.</p>

<p>I don't see John Peri's <em>photos</em> as toying with ideas and don't see him, with what he has given me in his photos, as connecting with his models. To be fair, he may very well be establishing amazing and deep connections with his models. Only he could tell us that and, though I haven't read his comments on his own work lately, I recall him talking about his respect and caring for them. None of that comes through to me in his photographs themselves. That's why accompanying words to photographs can often be a distraction. When I don't see something in a photo, it is usually the case that accompanying words describing what I don't see will sound even more hollow. Occasionally, an artist's statement will provide some key information that will make me look differently at a photo and that can be a great experience. I find John's work objective and distanced, considering he is dealing with such a human subject. I experience it as cold and calculated. Through what I see in the photographs themselves, I get no sense of connection either to his subjects myself or between him and his subjects. When I see a new one of his, I always recognize it as his because of its lack of actual vision, though they are often technically quite fine prints and show a real adeptness of craft. I don't get a difference in reading between his women and his wine glasses, shoes, stairs, rugs, or the rest of the decor in the photos.</p>

<p>That being said, I recognize I am in the minority and he is a highly-praised and popular photographer here. As you said with our own philosophical musings, I think it's also the case that our critiques often say more about us than about the photographers we are critiquing.</p>

<p>What I think is that you have picked photos in a genre that is likely to stir emotions, and that talk of mores, morality, shock, power, shame, release seems natural to the subject matter. The subject matter -- as Ton has mentioned, because of society's pre-disposal to deal with nudity and public nudity especially in bizarre and entrenched ways, is driving the train here -- not the photographers or their particular photographs.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I like the way you think and I believe the subject/genre/content of these photos moved you to bring up some compelling issues. I don't experience those compelling issues dealt with in the photos you reference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Fred. You understand the question, which is gratifying. I admit that, had I had time, I surely could have come up with better photos, and indeed I remember some, but I don't remember who made them, nor know any quick way to find them.</p>

<p>Perhaps those who do grasp the question--and the idea behind it--can come up with some examples that better convey the point. My original post was actually quite hurried, my long-winded way of saying things to the contrary notwithstanding.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >Lannie, I apologize. I really meant to wrap it up with that last post but I just clicked on your link to "Hitchhiker." That is undoubtedly the most humorous illustration yet. There is no way you can argue that is anything other than a male's fantasy imposed on the body of a woman. For my literal reading: awkward (look at that right arm), uncomfortable (frowning face), appears to have puppet strings attached to each elbow (who is the puppeteer, yeah quite literally, she is a puppet). If you want something that says nude hitchhiker, for gosh sakes, at least put her on a well paved Farm to Market (you can do that without getting caught). I grew up in the country; weeks go by with no traffic on that there dirt road. It is a fantasy that she is hitchhiking. It's okay if you want to call it artistic imagination. Again, I stick with fantasy.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And I have to ask a question. Why do naked women wear stilettos? Don't any naked women have flats or even go barefoot? Hey, flip-flops would protect the feet. Yeah, I know why. Because it gives their body a better, less dumpy, shape. And why? For the male. We are back to fantasy. If photographing nudes was as high minded as you seem to imply there would be a lot more photographs of dumpy naked women.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Being country through and through, I do not feel naughty looking at pictures of naked people. I do not feel naughty being naked, did a lot of that in the country. Been photographed a lot by my wife doing that in a large number of state parks and even in one Houston city park. Would you like to see my wife's photographs of public nudity? Maybe you could use them to illustrate your point.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And if you read this with a really cornpone country accent (think Andy Taylor) it really will make a lot of sense.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If you want something that says nude hitchhiker, for gosh sakes, at least put her on a well paved Farm to Market (you can do that without getting caught). I grew up in the country; weeks go by with no traffic on that there dirt road. It is a fantasy that she is hitchhiking. It's okay if you want to call it artistic imagination. Again, I stick with fantasy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Gary, you left me laughing on this one. </p>

<p>In addition, as one who never liked nudes in heels, I can see that we are on the same page after all. If you're going to shoot them naked, well, shoot them naked, I say.</p>

<p>Fantasy it is, then. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</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...