Why Nudes?

<p>Perhaps this has already been discussed ad nauseum, so feel free to delete this.</p>

<p>This question was inspired by a recent discussion that introduced me to photographer Jock Sturges.</p>

<p>Basically, why do people shoot nudes? I can understand it if you're in a culture or environment where nudity is the norm, but I never quite got the fascination with nudes in art (painting or photography). Many on here have nudes in their portfolios, and I'm wondering why you chose that subject matter. Is it the challenge of making an imperfect body look attractive, is it a fascination with the human body, is it an attempt to uncover emotion by removing all possible distractions, or is it something completely different?</p>

<p>Bill<br>

</p>

<p>First, let's recognize that everyone shoots different material. So some people shoot architecture (and not everyone). The arguments for shooting architecture are valid even if not everyone focuses on that particular theme. You may have car photographs in your portfolio and just b/c others may not shoot cars doesn't make your reasons for focusing on cars illogical.<br>

Second, to your question....why nudes? It can be especially challenging to a photographer when you eliminate many of the props that come with clothes (b/c you can't add the color of an ensemble). It requires a good eye for lines and form (which is part of the reason that many art nudes often end up in B&W...to emphasize lines and form). It can take a form we're all familiar with (the human body...we've all got one) and allow the photographer to transform it via bodyscapes or placing the model in poses or situations that challenge what a body is supposed to look like (yes Edward Weston, I'm talking about YOU). It can sometimes shock or create mood in a way that clothed models cannot (see Francesa Woodman's self-portraits). It can be about integrating the model into a landscape or environment that it would appear to be out of place and yet make it appear complimentary or natural (such as environmental nudes).<br>

Third, to question it as a subject matter is like saying...why shoot fruit in still-life scenes or why shoot flowers or why shoot abstracts or why shoot macro photography?</p>

<p>I just like looking at nice boobies.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Depiction of nudes in art goes back to at least the Upper Paleolithic of 28,000 to 25,000 BCE (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf ) so it's pretty well established as a genre.<br>

Of course, some sensitive souls such as former Attorney General Ashcroft fear its spiritual degenerative powers ( http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm ).</p>

<p>If you are into a rather-literal interpretation of the Ten Commandments on NOT making images of "any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth", then you had better not use a camera at all. Many people worldwide believe in this prohibition, by the way.</p>

<p>There are some limits, even recognized in the freedom of speech interpretations by the courts, of certain kinds of photographs, but why NOT photograph nudes?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've seen many nude-photography outside the more common "artistic nudes" of young women. There were of seniors to raise awareness for a particular cause such as cancer, others tastefully made and range the whole gamut of reasons. </p>

<p>Seen for what it is, including common nudes, there is beauty in the human body form akin to a sapling or a mature redwood that can be seen and appreciated in a variety of contexts, even if a particular approach has been done to death. </p>

<p>+1 Kent :)</p>

<p>I read an article last week affirming that both men & women like looking at a nice female body. Maybe we're just hardwired for that.</p>

<p>First, a couple of NOTs. My photographing nudes is not usually about line and form and not usually (well, not ever . . . yet) about nice female bodies.</p>

<p>The males I've shot nude are nude as part of their story, not as a study (except for one I can think of which is more a traditional study of the nude form). I'm shooting mostly average middle-aged and older gay men and some of them have agreed or like to pose in various stages of undress. That has many features for me. It can be titillating, as a middle-aged (well, old) gay man myself. It's, in some part, about exploring the "beauty" of atypical bodies and types. More, to me, its about associating our bodies with who we are as people rather than some abstract sense of form. For me, it's often part of a narrative rather than a study. My own photographs are sometimes about visibility and the nudity in it just seems to go along with that.</p>

<p>"Gay", IMO, is defined by culture and identity and also strongly defined by sexuality. (After all, "gay" means homosexual.) So, I tend to see elements of sexuality in a lot of nudity. Interestingly, there are often protestations made to the contrary by nude photographers who claim it's not sexual. I'm sure sometimes it's not and I'm sure sometimes that's a crock. I know with my own work, there are photos of nude guys that seem very non-sexual to me. But only some.</p>

<p>I like looking at female bodies. I prefer looking at male bodies. I imagine some of it is hardwiring and a lot of it is cultural. The amount of actual or feigned disinterest by straight men in the male body is, IMO, a lot more a matter of cultural baggage than it is about so-called hardwiring. (Maybe the Greeks were hardwired differently, I don't know, but they sure were in tune with the male body.)</p>

<p>Artists tend to find buttons to push. Jock pushed a few.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interestingly, there are often protestations made to the contrary by nude photographers who claim its not sexual. I'm sure sometimes it's not and I'm sure sometimes that's a crock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always doubt people who claim that their nude photography is not sexual. One should always call a spade a bl**dy shovel and be done with.</p>

<p>You guys! ... still laughing at the above comments! Ahem....</p>

<p>From a standpoint of human interest, I'd say we're hardwired to attend to our fellow humans. This is mostly true of faces and hands. We have significant patches of cortex devoted to nothing but hands and faces. But we also attend to other aspects of the human form. Extracting the human form from visual information is of primary importance to us for a number of reasons, which is why we have such a heavy neural investment in doing it. Most of us are considerably less adept (and less neutrally invested) in picking out pelicans or fishes. But tease apart the brain of a pelican, and I think you'd find quite a representation of fishes there, as well as of other pelicans.</p>

<p>From a standpoint of photography, I would say that nudes represent an opportunity for study of light on form, without complications of lightness/color (ignoring tan lines, I suppose). I've not done any nude photography (doesn't really interest me), but I do a lot of candid portraiture, and there is a lot of appeal to nice skin tones.</p>

<p>You might take a look at Kenneth Clark's book, The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form</p>

I think the photographers for <I>Juggs</I> magazine do a far better job of depicting the aesthetics of the human form than most of the work I have seen here.

<p>Why not make every woman wear a burka and get it all over with? I suspect there are about as many reasons behind "why nudes" as there are photographers, from erotica to the interplay of light and shadow and curves and angles. Or, blame it on Mother Nature. People aren't born with clothes. In the Victorian era they put pants on table legs. Can you stand seeing all those nekked dogs and cats roaming around?</p>

There's an interesting article in Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_nudity

<p>Most stuff that passes for artistic nude photography of women, here and elsewhere online, is neither an interesting study of form and lighting nor sexy. Cliched contorted positions poking out boobies and butts isn't sexy. It's just a combination of adolescent lasciviousness and gynecological exams, combined with hardware designed to appeal to gadget freaks.</p>

<p>If I was forced to write a critique for most "artistic nudes" it would be "Wow, she's really naked. It doesn't get much more naked than this. Congrats on photographing such a naked woman. And thanks for leaving her skin on, since there's only one way to make her even more naked, short of an internal exam."</p>

<p>But <a href="http://picchore.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/audrey-hepburn1.jpg">Audrey Hepburn barefoot in the kitchen</a>? That's sexy. Because it pushes all the right, <em>and wrong</em>, buttons in all the right ways. If you're gonna objectify the iconic gamine figure and have fun with it while also tweaking perceptions of roles, this is how you do it. This is the photo I still love to feel guilty about loving.</p>

<p>Over the years I think I've marked exactly one "nude" photo as a favorite on photo.net, and it isn't really a nude figure study. It's <a href="/photo/11182634">Frank Bowman's snapshot of an uninhibited naked girl</a> at Mardi Gras. And it's delightful because it is a completely uninhibited and spontaneous celebration of youth and life and captures perfectly what so many millions of artistic nude figure studies fail to capture.</p>

<p>It seems to me that underlying a number of responses (except for Fred, of course) is the assumption that we are talking about the female nude form. Why might that be? (rhetorical question)<br>

Also, just to emphasize...the nude form in photography does not necessarily have to emphasize beauty or sexuality in a direct way. Take this powerful photo essay by Cole Thompson for example (the story behind it is impressive): <a href="http://www.colethompsonphotography.com/Linnie.htm">http://www.colethompsonphotography.com/Linnie.htm</a></p>

<p>Daniel, I'm not talking about female nude form either, and yet you interpreted it that way. Why might that be?! (Just having fun, Daniel...)</p>

<p>I mostly posted to say I meant to write "neurally invested", not "neutrally invested" Apparently my computer spell checker is smarter than I am.</p>

<blockquote>I suspect there are about as many reasons behind "why nudes" as there are photographers</blockquote>

<p> That's what I was curious about, Gary, the individual reasons for photographing nudes. It seems almost a pre-requisite for photographers who are considered or consider themselves 'artists' to have a portfolio of nudes, whether male or female or young or old. I'm simply wondering why, in a cullture where nudity is not the norm. Sure, you can walk into some Amazonian village where nudity is the dress code and take pictures, or you can take pictures of naked people for medical study, but that's not the same thing as studio nudes or posed nudes or intentionally seeking out naked folk.<br>

The answers are ecxellent and honest (and funny), even the really short ones, and spoken far better than I could communicate. In terms of pure sexuality, I agree with Lex that scantily clad is far sexier than nude (and that is one sexy shot of Hepburn). Frankly, the 'naughty bits' aren't all that attractive as far as I'm concerned. Even someone in a skin-tight body glove is far sexier to me (well, depending on the body type) and exhibits every bit the form that a nude body does. Long, wavy clothers can also add an element of interest in the lines they form and the way they hang on the model.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I like looking at female bodies. I prefer looking at male bodies. I imagine some of it is hardwiring and a lot of it is cultural.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I don't understand what the cultural element would be in one's feeling when looking at nude bodies. I could certainly see the cultural element in how we accept nudity, but I think it is primarily hardwired in us to like certain human forms. I, for example, prefer to look at one specific type of female form over others, while many will prefer something different. I can't think of any cultural influence given I recall liking that particular form as far back as childhood, when I first started having body awareness. The same holds for the male form, though my 'hardwiring' doesn't cause me to react the same way.</p>

<p>Bill, what I meant is that it's not acceptable for most straight males to "appreciate" a male body in the same way as a female body. Even without the recognition of sexuality, I think it's a culturally-induced state that most straight men won't see beauty in the male form. There are exceptions, of course. I don't think you'd find the same cultural baggage when it comes to gay men appreciating both the beauty and the sexuality in a female body. No one is going to seriously accuse me of being latently straight because I get turned on (sexually, visually, or aesthetically) by a female nude. (Well, one or two radical gay men I know might!) But take a guy in the midwest telling his buds down at the local saloon that he saw a beautiful male nude and bought it to hang in his home, and let the ribbing begin, if not the chance of a beating.</p>

<p>I can't tell you how many "critiques" of my work, by straight guys, have started with "I'm not gay but I really appreciate your photo . . . " I've never started a critique of a female nude by saying "I'm not straight, but . . . " I think there are all sorts of cultural reasons for these differences.</p>

<p>What I may be saying, as I think about it, is that our liking of certain nude forms and our attractions to them may be hardwired, but our reticence to even consider or open ourselves up to certain forms and, beyond that, even if we do like them our reticence to admit those likes, is very much a matter of societal pressures and culture. I'm not one of those gay people who insists on my attraction being hardwired or biological, though I certainly think that's part of it. I also think I've learned to be gay and adopted it to a certain extent and I think the same is true for straight people. Much of that is influenced by environment, experience, and culture. Just as I don't think most gay people were hardwired to like and relate to Judy Garland, it's something they've learned through exposure and association, I think the same is true for a lot of our sexuality. We avoid responsibility, to some extent, by claiming it's all hardwired. I don't mind taking responsibility for being gay and I am fine with anyone who chooses to be gay or straight or transgender. And I don't think rights should be dependent on our having to prove we were born this way or that. I can choose to be gay and still deserve the same human rights as anyone else. And judging from the amount of so-called "straight" married men who are having clandestine gay sex in the bathhouses and backrooms of San Francisco establishments, there are an awful lot of straight people choosing, now and then, to be gay.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> It seems almost a pre-requisite for photographers who are considered or consider themselves 'artists' to have a portfolio of nudes, whether male or female or young or old.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think this is true. While some artists do nudes, I think most don't.</p>

This is getting kind of complicated when it is really straightforward.

Cara St Hillaire our senior moderator put it this way in the Help Forum:

 

"Nude photography is an important photographic genre and photo.net would never want to eliminate

such an artistic part of the craft we all love." (Direct quote)

 

If it is indeed an "important photographic genre," better ask " Why NOT nudes?" I do not object if they are photographically well done. With flair and some taste. .And an opt out privllege. )For libraries where Henry Miller is not on shelf either..

 

Not a cultural norm he says-- hmm-we could kick that one around till the cows come home. Nudity has always been a cultural norm. Except for communities led by Cotton Mather- and I am not sure about him:-)

<p><em>"It seems almost a pre-requisite for photographers who are considered or consider themselves 'artists' to have a portfolio of nudes, whether male or female or young or old."</em></p>

<p>I don't think of it as a pre-requisite but I think many artists will be drawn to attempt nudes because it has a historical place in our artistic canon. That makes sense, just as many artists will try their hand at still lifes and just as Ansel Adams tried his hand at portraiture, just as a lot of directors tried their hand at Westerns back in the 40s and 50s even though they weren't known to be directors of Westerns in the class of John Ford.</p>

<p>I think attempting nudes, like still lifes or portraits, is a matter of connecting to a tradition, which is a big part of the process of art and life of the artist, even while the artist may be breaking with that same tradition.</p>

We seem to be getting away from the original posted question which was - <I>"Basically, why do people shoot nudes?... Many on here have nudes in their portfolios, and I'm wondering why you chose that subject matter." </I><P>

 

By way of answer let me say that I don't shoot nudes. I have a wife who has a firey and jealous Spanish temperament. But, I would like to just try it out to have that in my portfolio to show my male friends and bathe in their envy. 95% of nude photography is nude women. I am sure that when I just mentioned that I would like to try nude photography every one assumed I meant taking photos of naked women. If I were to take photos of naked men and show them to my friends, I'm sure I would get some very funny looks.

<p>James,</p>

<p>Thanks for trying to get the discussion on the right track. With a few exceptions, most of the answers deal with the philosophical vice actual. </p>

<p>Just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against nudity and have even engaged in it myself at times. I've never photographed nudes because I've neither had the opportunity or desire, but if presented with the opportunity in a class or something, it might be fun to see if I could come up with something unique. I have several paintings of nudes or semi-nudes hanging in my home, though they came with the wife. I had no objection to them being hung. But like all paintings, some are better hung than others (sorry, couldn't help it). The reason for the question was that my curiosity was piqued by another recent thread on this forum, and I simply wondered what the personal reasons were for shooting nude rather than clothed subjects.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"but if presented with the opportunity in a class or something, it might be fun to see if I could come up with something unique."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, I think that's an important point that contributes to the discussion on reasons. <br /> <br /> I have a friend who modeled nude for art classes. She tells me that the hardest part was maintaining poses which can often be a challenge. The self-conscious aspect of nudity apparently goes away after the first couple of sessions and students were equally at ease through their painting class. <br /> <br /> Self-taught photographers will attempt landscape photography having never taken a class, so why not nudes or any other subject? I don't know that anyone needs a reason to rationalize their pursuit beyond the simple desire that drives them. Any interpretation of their resulting work or speculation on their motive is in the eye of the beer holder. </p>

<p>My one and only attempt at nude photography resulted in multiple mosquito bites and an itchy weekend.</p>