Nudes, Landscapes and Fine Art Photography

[john_wire]

My kind of 'fine art' nude. Style/Class/Movement. The daily fare of advertising nudity is boring/tasteless/juvenile. Regards.<div></div>

[peter_nelson1]

<I>Why is a nude, like much Black and White photography, automatically considered 'Fine Art'?</I><P>

 

It isn't. Your whole premise is wrong!<P>

 

<B><I>Next</B></I> Question!

[alan_katz2]

Lukia, If you are bored with what you see in nude or landscape photography, that is a call to

you to bring more to it. Your instincts are telling you that you know there is more content,

depth, understanding than what you see in others work. Go for it! The nude, landscape have

always been lofty goals that when approached with insight tell us much about ourselves.

They are also the two subjects that suffer the most abuse, especially when they pander to our

superficial base instincts. This site presents Artists that cover the scale from top to bottom.

Be wary of the most popular though. If you make the journey down deep, you will be

rewarded by the treasure you will find, but will most definately be there alone.

[c4-contemporary-art]

"fine art" is a label we apply to photographs of naked women - and unchallenging

subject matter in order to validate them, or at least make them seem less like porn or

(uncreative) subject matter, respectively. The term creeps me out.

[pbajzek]

I had my reply all lined up, then I got to the end of the thread and saw that Peter Nelson

expressed my answer verbatim. Personally nude photography is my chosen subject matter,

and one that interests me more than any other, on many levels, when it's done well. Which

is very seldom. As much as I love the nude, nudity does *not* automatically equate to art

in my eyes, and I actually have a difficult time finding nude work that really moves me.

 

As a side note, while I certainly enjoy seeing new things, I don't see any reason to reject

work for failing to be completely revolutionary. If that were the primary criterion for

judging artwork, we should have all given up long ago (this does not excuse laziness or

shameless plagiarism, by the way). I don't care whether an image is completely unlike

anything that's ever been seen before, I care if intrigues me and engages my imagination,

intellect or emotions.

[gordongo]

It is about marketing, sociology and sexism. Right now the biggest sellers in the contemporary photography scene are large format color photography. if things keep going that will be what poeple think of as fine art.

<br>

<a href="http://www.gordonphoto.net">Gordon</a>

[zoewiseman]

I think as photographers most of us get bored with just about anything, I know I do, and

that isn't saying that I can't appreciate photography anymore... it just says that I have seen

more photography than the average person who isn't engrossed in photography. A

musician gets jaded the same way we do with music. There is a lack of inspiration

sometimes. Maybe not looking at photography for awhile might give your solar plexis a

jolt once again.

 

My main avenue of photography is black and white nudes. I get bored with nudes too, but

I get inspired by an IDEA not just a naked body.<div></div>

[pbajzek]

Zoe, that is a simply beautiful photo. And a very inspiring one at that. Your point about

taking "breaks" is a very important one. Thanks for sharing.

[the lost wanderer]

Well, I guess two of my photos have been removed because of erections. I suppose that's fair enough, but they could have sent me an email, or something about it. I've seen a lot of photos of aroused women, some of them masturbating, so why is an aroused male, not masturbating, so wrong? Ironically, I would rather photograph women, but I thought that there was something interesting about that photo (the other was a crop of the same); even if the contrast was off. For the person that left a comment. You were right, the contrast was wrong. It looked great on my laptop and on one monitor screen, but on two other monitors it look awful. But I thought that the composition was interesting, as well as the shadows cast on the body by the tree and the pose of the body. The erection had some interesting angles because of the pose. I agree that erections are generally not good, but that one worked because of the arch of the body. If we don't want sexual arousal of genitals, that's fine. I have no problem with that policy what-so-ever, but it should be across the board. Thanks to the one person that had commented. If someone else did, sorry, all the comments were removed at the same time as the photo(s) and were, therefore, not seen by me.

[ansel_ho]

...fine Art or not is very subjective..!? As same, porn or nude..all depends how he/she interprets..!? To me, pics in Playboy can be porn or art..the point is if the pic is about close-up of specific area..??