can you tell us what an original nude is?

[mike dixon]

<i>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.</i><P>

Hugh, I don't have much trouble getting beautiful models, but I still don't care for Igor's nudes (though, based on his entire portfolio, I think he's a talented and skilled photographer). Maybe you should actually pay attention to the criticisms that have been levelled rather than just insulting the people who made them by claiming they feel jealous or inadequate.

[twmeyer]

Hugh, if you'd bother to actually read what has been contributed to this thread you'd know your viewpoints have already been addressed (and better expressed). Please try to participate in this discussion by actually participating, rather than drive-by posting... t

[struan_gray]

I don't like 'Nude Photography'. It's conventional to the point of stasis, unthinking in its

choice of models, environments, props and presentation and with a very few

honourable exceptions, devoid of ambiguity, personality, feeling or flair.

 

My exceptions are Penn's Earthys, some of Weston's work and various odds and sods

scattered across the internet: a certain t. meyer's Erotic Aftermath for example.

 

Almost all else reminds me of sickly late romantic academic sculpture. Just as most

landscape photography is stuck in the conceptural world of Bierstadt and Church, the

usual nude is a C19th bit of coy pidgeonholing. Nude women are meek and ready for

projection; nude men are muscular christians who just happen to have mislaid their

trousers.

 

Igor's nudes are of a high technical standard, and I agree with Mike that he's a 'Good

Photographer', but he's still just issuing the same old licence to stare. The women may be

physically strong, but they're mental and emotional wimps. The Olympics had women's

weightlifting, shot put, shooting and fight sports, all performed to a high level, but I don't

suppose any of the medallists will be getting a call from Igor any time soon.

 

The unexamined life is supposedly not worth living. Most nudes are lifeless, and definitely

not worth examining.

 

Still, all is not lost, even here at photo.net. Have you seen Jane Aaron's stuff? Wit and

pubes in equal measure - time for a posse of Notables to put her in her place.

[twmeyer]

Very subtle oxymorony, Struan; "a posse of Notables". Thanks also for the note on Jane... t

[acearle]

Struan, where on EARTH do you get "...but they're mental and emotional wimps?" Is it an assumption that a woman with an exquisite form must, by definintion, be mentally and emotionally blonde????? Is it that only women with their hair in a bun and thick horn-rimmed glasses are intelligent and have emotional depth?

[acearle]

Darnit, forgot to respond to the observation that his backgrounds are bland and possibly intentionally so. I am SURE they are intentionally so, the question for y'all is to try and figure out why. One project I've had on the back burner for a while (winters are to )@#$@$# cold to shoot nudes in Taiwan and summers are to )@#@#$@$ hot, so I'll prob'ly start it this fall (which means October???/November/December here) is nudes in abandoned structures, with a REAL emphasis on abandoned factories. The backgrounds will be pretty dismal, there are more abandoned factories per square Km around here than you can shake a stick at. Now, the question I have is "why do you think I'm choosing this setting?" Then ask yourself the question "why does Igor choose the settings he does?" Maybe a comment on modern life? Dull and lackluster but oversexed at the same time? The contrasts are fascinating. Does one get to the point with sexuality where the stunning nature of the sex partner no longer is enough to sustain the interest in the act? If Igor's shots seem bland after while and repeatative, what does that say about where you are putting the emphasis...on the body, the physical...if you see them as bland and boring, maybe you oughtta think about what it is that sex and sensuality means to YOU? Is it all physical, or is there another more important component? Maybe THIS is what Igor is trying to get across in his work...I can tell you from experience of working with some of the hottest female singers in Taiwan that after while it becomes "ho hum, another piece of eye candy, great, yippe...how little is she gonna pay THIS time...great body, but STILL a prima dona." I think Igor's models are (naturally) stunning, and we get no sense of who they are...hmmm, now THAT is something I DO like about his shots, they make me wonder about the subjects...that may be why I was surprised by the "but they're mental and emotional wimps" question.

 

...I'm guessing, blowing air, possibly from the wrong orifice, but my point is that Igor is OBVIOUSLY not some hack, there is method and thought behind his work (possibly like some of us, he doesn't think about it when he is doing it, he just does it because it feels right, I dunno)(again, I'm speculating, guessing, assuming, and all the other things that usually get one in trouble)...

[constance_cook]

Alton:

 

Where do you get "mentally and emotionally blonde?" And you're picking on Struan?

 

Yeesh!

 

Conni

[acearle]

Well, as one who is blonde all summer (errr, graying more these days), I can attest to....errr, never mind, I'm shooting myself in the foot...

 

...and I didn't mean to pick on him, I hope no offense was taken :-)...

[twmeyer]

"mental and emotional wimp"y-ness may be construed from subserviant posturing and compliant positioning with no indication of any emotional investment in the activities in which they seem to be little more than furniture or apparatus whose function is to be done to. They declare themselves through this posturing and titleing to be recipients of action rather than instigators. Captions such as "I'm Ready" and "Shoot Me" further support the apparent lack of any enlightened self interest, a sure sign of disengagement from the significance of the metaphorical concepts or the literal implications of the images and situations they are illustrated in... t

[struan_gray]

I can live with being picked on - it's better than being ignored. No offense taken.

 

Tom said it all, but here's my take anyway.

 

I don't think nudes are or need to be about sex alone, but for all but the most holy and

strong willed viewers naked just can't help also being nekkid, if only as a secondary or

subconscious factor. I like sex as something you do with someone, not to someone. Igors

pictures are the latter - the women are there to be looked at with impunity, with no

requirement to examine or justify your own motives for looking.

 

The women may be strong, but they're gym-bunny strong. Not many athletes look like

this, except perhaps middle distance runners and they as a rule tend to wait and get the

boob job done when they've stopped competing. So what? Well, the women in these

photos have a body style that is explicitly governed by what "looks good", rather than, say,

what propels you most efficientlly through the water or down the back straight. I'm not

dissing the effort or intentions of the women in Igor's photos, but by using them rather

than other possible 'strong women' he gives the viewer an easy ride.

 

I don't want to butress my reaction to Igor's nudes with a mess of feminist rhetoric, but it

would be trivially easy to do so. My main objection is personal: there's no character in

these women, and I like women of character. Also, there's no sense that the photographic

process has created anything other than a record, and entry to my photographic pantheon

demands a bit more than that.

 

FWIW I did like one of the ones with the camera when I came across it on it's own. But

viewed with the rest of the folder it lost a lot of it's potential bite - the wry digging I saw in

the individual image was my own projection.

[twmeyer]

yeah, those were particuarly ironic to me, as they could be interpreted as ridiculing the cliche'd male photographer's gaze that his other images precisely define. But given the context of the portfolio, they are instead the prototypical expression of that mindset. His fans seem unaware of, or perhaps are winking at that irony.<p>In spite of this overwhelming tendancy to the obvious, occasional gems squeak through. But they are difficult to appreciate as singular images because of their contamination by the over arching themes of the work. Their context condemns them to be buried in the pack... t

[acearle]

Hmmm, I'm gonna just think here for a moment (very risky and painful, but I'll do my best--be on the lookout for logical disconnects and other forms of mental rubbish). I think any nude has 100% to do with sex, not intercourse, but people are critters like any other species and we are hard wired to reproduce. Different cultures have very different views of women and sex...on one extreme is, possibly, the U.S.. On the other extreme...lesse, Saudi Arabia maybe? A good example is where *I* live, I pass glass houses (literally, little glass houses) with very scantily clad women selling betelnut, coffee, beer, and cigarettes (I keep meaning to go shoot them, but their positioning alongside roads with center dividers and shrubs makes it hard...maybe this fall). These women make a percentage of sales, and have very few other options other than prostitution, so I stop frequently and give them my business instead of one of the corporate conglomorate stores like 7-11 (I believe there are more 7-11s in Taiwan than in the entire U.S.). My wife and I have gotten to know a number of these women (girls in many cases, 16, 17, 18ish). What strikes me is the culturally submissive poses they strike with the customers (see, there my long winded meanderings do come back to the point). In this culture, it is what is considered idealistically desireable and is used to draw customers back (I do my best to spread my coffee and cigarette purchases around). Funny thing though. Once you get past the Bitzy the Airhead posing, you find very strong personalities. It is a COMMON misconception among foreigners here that Chinese women are submissive (I wear the pants in my house, when I can wrestle them away from my wife, lol). So, here we are with Igor's images. In some ways U.S. feminists would call them degrading because the PHOTOS, not the women, seem emotionally arid. However, I live in a place where sex is sex and love is love. Unlike the U.S., they don't necessarily have to co-mingle. An emotion other than desire is often not required for sexual relations. That is part of my reality that I see in Igor's shots. I see the women that approach musicians after a show simply for sex. In my PERSONAL opinion, I think that is socially destructive (STDs, abortions, unwanted kids, and a myriad of other problems that occur between 2:00am and 6:00am). However, it exists, and it is a reality (different from the reality that most people experience, but no less valid). I know VERY little about Russian culture, but from talking with the few Russian women I've met here, I get the feeling that it is much more open as far as sex for sex's sake goes. As a final thought on this, when I was performing (music), it was really flattering to have the groupies clammoring after the shows....after a few months it because a real bother. Even though I enjoyed the attention early on, too much of a good thing, don'cha'know. Maybe THAT'S what I see in Igor's shots.

 

It also could be that I see the physiques. His models have worked VERY hard for their physiques (for a brief period, I tried body building, gave up after 6 months, didn't have the mental stamina for it). I appreciate the amount of work they have put into their bodies. And I also know that they don't always look like that, there was most likely some working out before the shoots to help muscle definition.

 

Tom, your comment about recipient of action rather than instigators is very interesting. Sex is discussed very openly here in Taiwan, especially among the aboriginals. I've been sitting at a table with a dozen people where the women are comparing breasts and breast size...even firmness "see? mine aren't firm enough, feel" and men are discussing penis size. The VAST majority of women here prefer to be passive in many situations. Most are less comfortable with being the instigator. In the odd logic of Chinese culture, by being passive, women are being the instigators (because most men seem to think they have the self control of a young bull). What is passive? What is being an instigator? That is all culturally defined. When I was younger and just married, my wife used to get furious at the "little flies" (direct translation from the Chinese) who would approach me on the street oozing passivity. I finally figured out that the passive approaches were in fact active instigation. If I'd been Chinese, I would have read the signals and hit on them (my wife is very un-Chinese in this respect, she badgered me for WEEKS before I finally agreed to a date).

 

Back to the boob jobs and physiques...again, I view this differently because of my background. A good friend of mine is one of the highest paid swimsuit models in Taiwan. She works her ASS off to keep in shape. She swears publically that her 34F boobs are real, but confesses privately that they aren't, and that they are a problem. Uncomfortable, the surgery was excruciating, she has to have a body guard at all times in public). She does it because she loves modelling and performing (she's also a professional singer). She also has NO long term boyfriends because men are intimidated by her sensuality/sexuality. She speaks perfect English because when she is not in front of a camera, she is a VERY strong and direct woman (scares the living SCHITT out of the average man here). She is at the far end of the performers that I know, but put it this way...a passive shy woman would not disrobe in front of a camera, that passivity is active seduction in the host culture.

 

A final comment about the captions "I'm Ready" and "Shoot Me." Those were placed there by the photographer to make a point, not by the model. They do NOT reflect on the model. I think sometimes people get so caught up in the image that they forget that. I think it is really easy with Igor's images because his models get past our cerebralization into our most basic instinctual urges to reproduce (we are hard wired to reproduce with the best physical specimin we can in order to produce the best offspring, Darwin, don'cha'know). I think a LOT of western men have been taught that this is wrong and are uncomfortable with it. However, it IS part of the way nature wired us (nature wired women to reproduce with men who are the best providers). That DOESN'T mean that we have to act on these primal instincts. In fact, doing so is NOT socially benneficial. However, denying their existance is also not socially benneficial. My wife and I have had the conversation about working with models who are physically perfect. She asks "Do you want to sleep with them?" and I answer honestly. The primal urge is there, but I am thankful for the social constraints of marriage (which in all honesty doesn't mean squat in Taiwan, it means something to me...err...because it means something to me). So, Igor's models DO appeal at a level so far below the conscious level that it makes MANY people uncomfortable.

 

A funny thing: My wife's two favorite photographer's on photo.net are John Perry and Igor. She finds the models aesthetially incredible. Me? I can't even list all of my favorite photographers, there are too many. In fact, I like ALL photographers, even those who I don't like (contradictory? No, I look for what I don't like about their work and learn from it).

 

By the way, I am NOT arguing that your interpretations and feelings about Igor's work are wrong, they are yours and fit your views :-). I'm just trying to show how Igor may be shooting and looking from a VERY different perspective that you may not have considered (personally, I like emotionally arid shots, it fits with my view of the world as basically emotionally aird, lol).

[acearle]

Fantastic discussion, by the way...haven't fired up the neurons like this for a LONG time :-).

[george peterson]

People are mixing 'metaphors' in this analysis and discussion, there is lots of beating around (about) the bush so to speak.<p> Sex/intercourse/sexism/culture/stereotype/subject/predicate/foreground/background Is Igor's work 'art' or is it expoitation? banal or profound? intentional or accidental? <p>So many clues, so much 'ambiguity'......hard bodies and hidden faces, starkly subtle or pedestrian and monotonous lighting?....<p> Substitute a large vegetable for each nude and think about it - then put the nude persons back and see if it adds substracts or changes enhances or wins or loses. Is it high art? or is it Russian kitch? <p> Our individual conclusion(s) regarding these and other issues makes interesting reading. :) <p>I am most impressed with the reaction I get when I show female friends Igor's work...the more mature they are (let me not say old) the more 'confronted' they are..Igor's women are not to be ignored ... male friends, perhaps even more daunted by these Olympian bodies - man enough? ..are you? really?? I think not...George.

[acearle]

What of the hidden faces? What is Igor saying when he has faceless olympian bodies (great description)? Why are more mature women uncomfortable with them? My wife is nearing 40, but likes Igor's work. Why would someone feel intimidated by the sheer physicality and physical beauty (aside from the fact that in a boxing ring I'd be down by the end of the second round)? Is he making a comment on genetal mutilation (female circumsicion stil happens) when he has a faceless shot of a woman with a pair of shears painfully close to the pubic region? Or is he commenting on something else? Maybe he's commenting on the self destructive nature of humanity? Maybe on the self destructive nature of age? Maybe the self destructive nature of trying to achieve and keep physical perfection?

 

I have not seen Igor discuss or explain his motives and theories anywhere. These question are what makes it art in my eyes, and why I keep coming back to his work. If he were to come out and say "this is a shot symbolizing X, Y and Z...I think they would lose some of their fascination for me. Sometimes what someone else sees in his (your) work is far more important than what you had in mind when shooting it.

[struan_gray]

Alton, the way different cultures handle and think about love, sex and the differences

between men and women is fascinating, but my impression of Igor's work is that he is

conforming strongly to a western genre, so until he pops up and tells us all about his

anthropological work among the more exotic tribes of Siberia I'll keep him filed as

'unoriginal'. One example: there are not many faces in his pictures, but those that are

there are certainly not what I would regard as typically slavic. They cleave to what I

regard as the mainstream US perception of youthful, healthful beauty.

 

Note that 'unoriginal' doesn't mean 'bad', or even 'merely technically proficient'. For me

though, it does mean 'dull'. I'm sure Igor can live with the disappointment :-)

 

I live in Sweden, where nakedness is often quite successfully divorced from sex, at least to

the extent that swimsuits or ballgowns are divorced from sex. "The Directors" epitomises

the usual sniggers this simple fact usually induces in Americans, but even for me (a Brit) it

can still cause unexpected culture clashes after many years of living here.

[twmeyer]

Alton, thanks for contributing an alternate point of view. A dialogue is so much more rewarding than posturing.<p>I'll try to work around your different points. Primarily I'd like to state that when I'm talking about the portrayal of women in Igor's photographs, I am not talking about the actual women. Let me invoke the DuChamp message written on the painting of a pipe; "this is not a pipe". Those women are used as symbols of "woman" as a sexual circus performer or a willing victim, and it's that "ideal" that is absurd. It has <i> nothing</i> to do with the individuals who posed for those photographs. I feel I know nothing about them as people, except what their bodies look like. This is what sets Igor's photos apart from John Peri's portraits, which are all about the individual.<p><i>"In the odd logic of Chinese culture, by being passive, women are being the instigators (because most men seem to think they have the self control of a young bull). What is passive? What is being an instigator? That is all culturally defined."</i> <p> This is a complete cop out that enables men to do as they please and then blame it on the women. It has long been used as an rationalization/excuse for rape and abuse by sports jocks and royalty and as story lines in Hollywood movie plots and porn flicks. It's a cross cultural ploy that is not specific to Chinese culture, but to male dominated societies across time and geography... These roles will continue to be so defined as long as a society enables these definitions through the portrayal and marketing of women as submissive personalities who <i>must</i> be so in order to be "acceptible", and of men as "young bulls" who are expected to have no sexual self control and are acceptible as such.<p> You say things are different in your house, and that's great. Try seeing what it's like in the homes of the young women in the kiosks, whose only alternative lifestyle (you say) is prostitution. How do you think that condition came to be? Through the submissive role of women and the assertive role of men in the culture at large, not the opposite situation in the microcosom of a household. Not even in the microcosom of the studio, where the woman who <i>must</i> have extremely painful surgery to be desireable to the culture at large, can be an assertive personality and a fully capable human being in private.<p>In the culture described by Igor's photographs, men do, and women are done. And this is true in your culture to the extent that your artificially supra-normal friend need guards, <i>men</i> guards, to protect her from the whims and urges of "young bulls". There are no social codes of conduct to protect her, because she has made herself fair game by how she appears.<p>Outside of private relationships, the definition of what a person is and can be, is defined by cultural mores and expectations. The culture is changed one individual at a time, and through that individual's efforts in private, and even more importantly, in public... t<p>Photographing those young women in their work environment would have much more power if you paired those images with photographs made of their private lives. Then you would show a context in which we could find <i>some</i> understanding of those young women, and see the impact of the culture's definitions and expectations on them, as individuals.

[randy_skopar]

I've noticed that discussions of this type never go on for long without several chaps leaping in with the "men are no good; men are blinded by testosterone; women are better at nude photography; women don't OBJECTIFY people; men are beasts, etc., etc., etc., as the cudgels of self-flagellation rise and fall. And such men are invariably American.

 

So, American guys, keep in mind how parochial you are, how much you are mouthing PC formulas, and how little-to-zero actual thinking you are doing. Quit reading MS magazine, put on a pair of men's underwear, go to Europe or Asia or South America where masculinity is understood and appreciated. You'll feel much better and won't come across as so brainwashed and p---ywhipped. And you'll make better pictures of our fellow fallen creatures called women.

 

Grant, you are a blessed exception to all this. Post some nice butt shots and a few sharp words to clear the air. NEKKID CHICKS LOOK GREAT, and a simple response to their yummy, sexy bods is nothing to be sneered at.

 

And besides, you can't always tell when a response is simple. I took a class in nude photography once. There was an Asian student in the class who blew the rest of us away. He shot the same models in the same light on the same occasions as the rest of us. Even in the same poses! But his shots made ours look mawkish. His shots were clearly superior, even, to those of the women students in the class, despite their advantages of not being blinded by testosterone and being morally superior, blah, blah, blah. This guy was just a better photographer than the rest of us. He treated the models in a grumpy, you're-not-a-person, non-PC way, but in the photographs the models came out looking beautiful beyond real life and the pictures had a haunting, elegiac quality that staggered you. So, all you guys but Grant, analyze THAT with your PC formulas!

 

In a foul mood--but right anyway, of course--I remain loyally yours and worthy of my first name,

 

Randy

[twmeyer]

"<i>I took a class in nude photography once</i>", and yet you still think underwear is what defines a man. <p>It was nice being talked at by you. Come back anytime you feel a monologue coming on, there's always room for one more diatribe... t<p>(another fan for you, grant!)

[Spearhead]

I agree with Tom. I would add that <i>in the photographs the models came out looking beautiful beyond real life</i> is hardly what I see as the characteristic of a great "nude" shot. In fact, it's the opposite. A great photo is very different from "great looking." Get a clue.

[bradley.scarbrough]

I agree with Grant. Enjoy!

[bradley.scarbrough]

"Sometimes what someone else sees in his (your) work is far more important than what you had in mind when shooting it."

 

So true! That is what art is all about.

[twmeyer]

"<i> trust your instincts....carry on!</i>" <p>I agree with grant, too... t

[randy_skopar]

Tom M.,

 

I felt a monologue coming on today, but I put it into a different thread. If you feel a need coming on to read another of my monologues, I'll tell you which thread.

 

I agree with Grant, and others agree with Grant, but they don't agree with me. I don't know how that is possible; and besides, it ain't fair!

[randy_skopar]

<<I agree with Tom. I would add that in the photographs the models came out looking beautiful beyond real life is hardly what I see as the characteristic of a great "nude" shot. In fact, it's the opposite. A great photo is very different from "great looking." >>

 

Hmm. I was too terse, and was misunderstood. The pictures this chap took were not retouched or soft-focused. He lit the models and posed them in such a way that the pictures took on a universality, as if he had recorded an essence of female beauty that transcended what I saw as I looked at the models in the flesh. I can't explain it more clearly.

 

<<Get a clue.>>

 

Get some therapy. You'll learn that you don't have to be condescending to others in order to feel good about yourself.