acearle Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 "We ignore "real" women, and flock to the unobtainable surrogate" Tom, interesting point, ans probably valid. However, there are those of us who flat out are not interested in photographing models like Igor's models (I really like his work, by the way...to me it is the contrast between the hypersexualized women and the decrepit surroundings, it seems to be more of a comment on modern reality than anything else, to me at least). Back to my point, I am really only intrested in shooting average women, and in showing that no woman *is* average, and by default no *person* is just average. I do think that men are hardwired to the bluest of the artificial moths, and there are a lot of people photographing them moths. However, at this point in what I R doing with a camera (some people call it camera abuse), originality comes in trying to document people who consider themselves average or less than average in every day situations and life (well, not always on the last one) and show that each person has something desireable. Unfortunately, in Taiwan getting average women to pose nude is nearly impossible (or at least in the middle of the boonies where I am). One of the the things I *am* planning to do is to go talk to the street walkers...most 30-40, most considered far beyond their prime, and try to get THEM to pose, looking for beauty in them (not necessarily nudes, but most likely...depends on the person). This is all coming from someone who doesn't know squat about much of anything (I slept through my college art history class...damned thing was a 8:00am), but Igor's shots are original in what they convey to me. Maybe its just that what he portrays in the environment/sexuality contrast is very close to actual reality (finding purtee pitshures in Taiwan is a challenge, finding pictures of urban decay is easy, problem is Fuji doesn't make enough film to shoot 'em all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhenry Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I've read the entire thread ... I think the question is more about originality than nude itself. <br>Originality is something less or unseen before the moment you discover it... in photography, I assume it can be a new process, a new angle, position, ... but above all originality differs from a person to another, depending cultural/educational background and interests...<br> in that respect I am in sympathy with Peter's remarks (BTW, Peter what happen to your portfolio? summer cleaning!?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_swinehart Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 If you look at Igor's work, I think the "Nude and Erotic" folder lacks editing. He really has nice figure studies if you look at Body #30, Body #5 or Body #24. It's unfortunate that the figure studies are overwhelmed by the "nude in a weird place" genre. My problem with most nude photos is either the person looks out of place in the setting, or the setting looks out of place with a nude (haven't quite figured that one all the way out). There seem to be a lack of synergy between the setting and the person. I sort of feel like I'm looking at a fried egg in bowl of Cheerios, or ice cubes and sauerkraut - something just doesn't seem natural. It's like being offered frozen spinach on stick as the antidote for a hot afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_abelson Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I think if you want to see some "original" nudes you should look to the work of Irving Penn: not his fashion stuff, but the "private" stuff he did in the 50s - not surprisingly, a golden age in American arts, music and photography - Penn explored the curves of larger women - people at the Met exhibit were often nonplussed, but I loved the work and have tried to explore the nude through that lens... <p> <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId=%7BB0BA8054-7B4D-11D5-93FC-00902786BF44%7D">Penn at the Met</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_nitsche Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Whatever the viewer thinks it is. Opinions probably vary as much as retinas. Trying to lock down a 'description' of what art should be is a effort in futility. A good conversation, but nothing that any conclusions will ever be drawn from. Peter A. put it best... "...it works for Igor and fans of this stuff". And it can be added that it doesn't work for others. That's about as defined as you will get it I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 "<i>perhaps youre thinkin too much....</i>"<p> Only when I'm tryin to keep up with you... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 hmmm, "fried egg in a bowl of Cheerios"... hmmm. I'm gettin on that this afternoon, Steve. Thanks for the Original Idea.<p> "<i>...the question is more about originality than nude itself</i>" Yep, that's my point. I enjoy a good figurative work as much as I do a good still life or landscape. I don't get as many oportunities to work in that genre as I used to, and I've never pursued it in ernest. When I did, Iwas always setting up difficult parameters, like working in color and avoiding objective treatment, or using 4x5 infrared in the woods to explore the less than ideal relationship between humans and the land. Currently I've been working in color... unreal-ish color, and incorporating lots of movement. I've always enjoyed the way painters can represent spirit illustrated through form, and much of that success is through the un-literal devices of applying pigment to substrate. Photography is so damn literal, so emphatic (which I know is it's strength), so with my new printing capabilities I'll be deviating from photo-real into something less photographic. In the case of nudes, the "graphic" too frequently overwhelms the "photo".<p>Most of my intelectualizations only happen when I'm being intellectual (ha), and I frequently go to extremes in conversation that never totally actualize themselves in my work or my otherwise so-called life. They are self tests, or touchstones from which I run back into reality and prove or disprove them. Too often on this forum, we are thought to be nothing other that what we express here. Personal exploration is taken as aquiesence or weakness of conviction. I'll take this opportunity to disallow that... I am other, both more <i>and</i> less than what you see of me.... t<p> As Walt Whitman said <p>Do I contradict myself? <p>Very well, I am multitudes."<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_swinehart Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 "hmmm, "fried egg in a bowl of Cheerios"... hmmm. I'm gettin on that this afternoon, Steve. Thanks for the Original Idea." I have a whole notebook full of weird food photo ideas...I just have to get around to them some day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 t, sounds to me like you are trying awfully hard to be different just to be different.....seems to me things work best if one is genuinely interested in what one looks at and responds according to the subject, and let that feeling and mood dictate the work....or you could force it, its up to you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 oh wait, i take it all back.....discover on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 huh? force what? <p>(oh wait... okay... now.) <p>Onward! to Discovery! <p>(see, here I am again, thinkin' too hard just to keep up with you)... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 i trust your instincts....carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noodleboy Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 i have to throw my two cents in because i think i have something valuable to say. when i am evaluating nude portraits, a few things come to mind, and not contrived things, natural questions are raised in my head: 1)what is the photographer trying to capture? what is it they wanted to say or express? what thought or emotion was put into the creation of this image? 2)could i grab the same camera they used, walk outside and shoot this same shot? 3)what does it make ME feel? is there anything striking at all that goes into my head? nude after nude after nude, all of these questions are failed in most all nude pictures i see. as for the way the POW applies to these thoughts? section 1 above - if there is any meaning trying to be communicated, it has failed. i see lakes, mountains, and naked girls every day in my own life. am i just not "deep" enough to appreciate this? section 2 above - leave the girl there on the rock when IGOR is done shooting, i will grab my yashica-A, throw some tri-X in it and give you the exact same shot. first person camera-held-at-chest-level-standing-up angle, no selective focus not very good use of value... this is a point and shoot snapshot at best. section 3 above - the only striking feeling i am given by this image is that i suddenly lost all respect for the photographer and from that point on I view the rest of his images with a playful condescending view. the image that brings the most meaningless laughter to me: http://www.photo.net/photo/2629028 you know, one last thing, if the artist of the current POW were to supply a good half a page of writing on what he was doing shooting that photo and what it means to him, if it was intelligent i could possibly take back all i say here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 <i>section 2 above - leave the girl there on the rock when IGOR is done shooting, i will grab my yashica-A, throw some tri-X in it and give you the exact same shot. first person camera-held-at-chest-level-standing-up angle, no selective focus not very good use of value... this is a point and shoot snapshot at best.</i><P>I always get a kick out of these sorts of appraisals (and self appraisals)--as if the photographer does little more than operate the camera. I'm also bored by most of Igor's nudes (he gets higher marks on his portraits and landscapes), but I will at least give him credit for finding locations, getting models, coordinating the how, when, and where of a shoot--all those things beyond camera operation that are vital to creating a shot.<P>I remember on a modeling photography forum I sometimes visited, someone once asked which of us could shoot a <i>Vogue</i> cover. I didn't reply, but there were several affirmative responses from guys whose work wouldn't even make it into a minor-market model's portfolio. They explained that it's the stylist, AD, model, makeup artist, etc. who make the shot--apparently, knowing how to work with and get the best from that team of people doesn't require any experience or knowledge . . .<P>[sorry about the digression. I do have things to say on the issue of nude photographry, but I haven't yet formulated them into something that fits this thread.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondiani Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 I like Shawn statement number 2: If he can do it too the photograph is no more than a snapshot. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted August 28, 2004 Author Share Posted August 28, 2004 Mondiani, read Mike Dixon's post directly above yours. Or re-read it more carefully.<p>Sawn, recognize the difference between a "nude" and a "nude portrait" One is more akin to a still life, and the other is a portrait of someone in which they are nude. One is an indiviual person, the other is a metaphor or archetype of an aspect of humanity.<p> Did Mike's response make sense to you? I just had a studio full of students, who were all shocked at the amount of work and knowledge that goes into the making of a "simple" portrait. Igor's work is quite challenging to accomplish. If you think it's so easy, then come back in a week with one that's comparable and we'll all enjoy criticizing <i>your</i> results. :^) Being critical is easy. That image is not point-and-shoot simple, but it's not all that "Excellent, Excellent, Excellent", either... t<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amul Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Arriving at this pretty late, I see. But here's my opening thought. Isn't there some value to be considered in the discussion it has generated? I read somewhere that one of the things that makes a photo so interesting is the choices behind it. A thousand pictures of hands have been taken. But each time you photograph it, you choose one angle, one light source, one position, and therein lies the art of it. We get it into the darkroom or the image editor (there should be a word that covers both of those places - the space an image is edited) and we make more choices. Igor's work, being constructed imagery, requires even more choices. He found that lake, that model, that time of day, etc. In what sense are these choices lacking in originality? Certainly there are a great many pictures using a nude within a larger landscape. Some of my favorite image makers have countless images in their portfolio like this. At what point does originality enter into it, then? If we accept that Nudes In Landscapes are a genre in themselves, then variation within that genre is the area in which we find originality. I think we're all agreed that, aesthetically, this is a very nice piece. There are strong compositional elements, and repetition of lines and hues, and wise choices regarding contrast that do not seem out of place. Each choice we make in the creation of a piece of art reduces the options for further choices. I tend to find that by the time I get to the end of my darkroom sessions, there are very few choices to make and more dictates that I must follow. Here, Igor chooses to do a Nude in Landscape, he chooses the location and a model, he then finds a composition, and so on. At what stage of all this could a greater degree of originality have entered? Where do you find inspiration lacking? I haven't answers to these questions. Mostly because my web browser will not load the image, and I'm discussing it entirely based on other people's comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted August 29, 2004 Author Share Posted August 29, 2004 I just saw the movie "Garden State" in which the lead woman's character employs a device to reassure herself that she is an honest and "original" person. She stands, and wiggles around, emitting googling whoopy sounds, and declares that to be an original moment because no one else has ever done exactly that, ever before, in exactly that spot. The leading man, when asked to respond with an original moment of his own, sheepishly wiggles a finger in the air and kind of groans. The girl responds, "I think I've seen that before".<p>I am not in agreement that this is "aesthetically... a very nice piece". <p>Rather, I think it is aesthetically an adequate piece of work. It satisfies a minimum requirement for this "genre" and does not rise above adequate in any way. It's predominant characteristic is a somnabulence that is interpreted by fans as "peaceful" or "serene". They are content to look at the woman's body and use the grey landscape, dull light and the image's generic fine art components as a legitimizing motive for that gaze. There is nothing outstanding there to see, unless you are fond of grey dull light, flat water, distant and indistinct hills and the possibility of rain... or a nude young woman of very certain proportions. <p>If I were standing there, camera at the ready and woman on the rocks, I would look at this scene and say, "it looks like rain, let's try again in the morning"... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted August 29, 2004 Author Share Posted August 29, 2004 purposely bland... you may be correct. The discussion seems to be narrowing in on "why?". <p>I'm not so much angry as I am disapponted with all the opportunity that he seems to have that produces work of such narrow scope. I have frustrations with my own productivity, and am well aware of the conditions that surround, inform, enable and restrict my work, but only know what I see at photo.net of Igor's work, and nothing of his life, which puts a serious dent in the relevance of any of my criticisms. There's much I cannot know and so much I can only speculate about. I have an overactive imagination and tend to opine incessantly... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 <IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-498.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 <IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-499.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 <IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-500.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 <IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-501.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 120 6x6cm Kodak Film. <BR><BR>How many megapixel is a nude ? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh_watkins Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 For me Igors work is some of the best that I see being posted on photo.net. His photos are a celebration of the female form and not of himself. This makes a welcome change to some of the other self-centred things I see. I believe that there is a certain amount of unexpressed frustration amongst posters due to the fact that Igor seems to have an inexhaustible supply of beautiful models. Let us allow that as an advantage of working in Russia. I expect that, on the other hand, Igor has to overcome many problems that we?ve not even thought about in producing his work. The question then becomes: is taking photos of beautiful women cheating/unfair/unoriginal? No more than taking landscape photos in a beautiful New Mexico location, as opposed to your local mall 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