What drives a Photographer of the nude ?

[beeman458]

"Should one shun God's creation?"

 

That's not what I asked. I'm asking, why should anybody care if someone is offended by nudity, irrespective of the rational of their thought. Where's the sin in finding nudity offensive. The Sistine Chapel and it's adornments are a creation of mankind, not a creation of God.

 

The truth of the matter, this is the pushing of a one way agenda. And anybody who thinks differently will be condemned for their thought by those who push this behavior. Very "unliberalized" thinking, wouldn't you say?

 

"Nudity isn't the problem, the context of the nudity is."

 

(snip)

 

"That's just FREAKY!"

 

I think people who "push" nudity are equally FREAKY. But I don't condemn anybody for their "need" to involve themselves in this behavior. I'm a dude, I got no problem with naked lady pics. But I do see an obsession with naked lady pics which should cause everyone pause.

 

Do you respect the above thoughts as valid, invalid, or do you see these thoughts as thoughts which should be condemned and banished from the face of civilized society because somehow you find these thoughts threatening, FREAKY or otherwise? Are you a truly an open minded thinker or just another one way, do it my way or the highway kinda thinker?

 

"Would these parents sheild their children's eyes from looking at the Sistine Chapel inside the Vatican itself? Ever been there? You can't look anywhere without seeing nudity."

 

Sorry, I don't have the time, money or desire to visit shrines of hypocrisy, such as is the Sistine Chapel. There's nothing in Vatican City which represents the teachings of Christ so why would I be compelled to go there?

 

If someone is hung up on taking their clothes off in public, that's their cross to bear, not mine. And if someone wants to keep their clothes on, same thing, that's their cross, not mine. But what I'm asking for everybody to explore; why this "need" to condemn those who aren't into nudity? Where's the sin?

[Norma Desmond]

I find a couple of things interesting. I'm a gay guy and recently posted a question about

male nude photography, getting very little response. What responses I did get

overwhelmingly kept suggesting that females were more "beautiful" forms so that's why

they were represented more in photographs and that women were "less visual" so were

less inclined to want to see male nudes. Both of those reasons, I think, have little objective

truth to them and are laden with cultural biases and misunderstandings. Judging by the

types of photos found daily in the nudes section of PN, there most definitely IS a sexual

component to many (certainly not all) nudes no matter how "high-brow" the

photographers pretend to be about their treatment of the subject (of course I realize these

are not professional shots). My experience, in shooting both straight and gay men, is that

they have similar preconceived notions of how the male body is supposed to be held and

displayed and I have a hard time dispelling them of that notion, but when I do the results

are overall better. Many assume that they will and want to pose in classical athletic or

greek poses and also seem more accustomed to active poses. Since I am always looking

for something new, I try to work against type and all the men seem to respond to that. I

find the men I work with to be very comfortable with me and with their bodies. That MAY

say, I'm really not sure (in regards to what Zoe says above about men being shy about

their bodies), that men are less shy about their bodies with other men, even gay men, than

they are with women. I'd be a little surprised about that, because I would think there would

be as much discomfort (if there is discomfort) on the part of straight men with either

women or gay men equally. But maybe not. In any case, and this may again be the

difference between a professional and an amateur shoot, and I'm not sure if we're talking

about commercial vs. art photography, but the doctor/patient relationship that's been

mentioned here seems way too sterile to me. While I remain respectful of all my models, in

my mind and heart and emotions and instincts, the last thing I want to do is be so

distanced from my subject. My appreciation of the male figure in so many ways goes into

my shoots. That appreciation, however, does not necessarily affect my behavior, which

does remain distanced.

[beeman458]

"But, because these QUAKERS complained about nudity inside the magazines which were a documentation of tribal life (EDUCATIONAL), other children were prevented from LEARNING about tribal life in Africa or South America... where ever the locale was that was documented inside National Geographic."

 

Let the Quakers determine their societal morals and you determine yours. Different strokes. Do you think for a minute, the folks who the pics were made of, care what you or I think about what the Quakers think?

 

"And if parents want their children to learn about healthy nudity..."

 

And who says it's "healthy" nudity as that's a value judgment on your part.

 

"...concerning nudity in the ARTS in a classroom situation then those kids ought to be able to learn and study this without fear from some closed minded individual."

 

And why the need to condemn those who don't see things as you do? What about the kids who don't feel comfortable with nudity? Who's going care about their feelings? What about those who don't see it as healthy and don't want this art taught? Why aren't their values considered with the same respect you give your own?

 

"Imagine a class about ART that couldn't show the Statue of David. Travesdy."

 

In truth, if the statue of David fell off the face of the earth (not condemning the stature in any way shape or form), other than being a pretty good sculpture (hands are a bit misproportioned, supposedly belying the youthfulness of the subject) the art world would not be any different then it is today. Sometimes icons are icons because they make for good press. So yes, it's easy to imagine an art class sans David and any pseudo travesty would be trumped up in nature, at best.

 

I find that it's easy for Progressives to condemn those who don't think like they do. Funny how one way this slippery slope really is.

 

Think about it, if just for a bit more, before you decide to condemn this countering thought some more.

[al_kaplan1]

About three years ago I got a call from a younger photographer friend who wanted me to come to his studio and help him with the lighting on a shoot. He'd grown up in the era of umbrellas and soft boxes but said the had a client, an entertainer, who wanted some photos lit in the dramatic style of 1940's movie star photos. A few days later I showed up at his studio a few hours before the shoot with gaffer tape, some black mat board to use for barn doors, and a couple of coffee cans with both ends removed that I'd spray painted black on the inside to use as snoots. He's already taken the soft boxes of his strobe heads. I brought a couple of my monolights and light stands just in case. As I was setting up and getting ready for the arrival of the client he told me that she might want some nude shots also.

 

Right on time a gorgeous sexy looking young black woman showed up wearing high heels and a short mini-dress, low cut in front so she nearly spilled out of it. Introductions were made as she checked her shoulder length hair and make-up. We shot a couple of rolls of 120, and another roll or two after she changed into another sexy outfit. Then she asked me if I'd feel comfortable shooting a few nudes. As she disrobed my friend whispered in my ear "Don't act shocked when you see that she's probably hung better than you are".

 

Sure enough this beautiful female body also had a full set of male genatalia! We shot another few rolls, also with the same dramatic lighting style.

 

A couple of weeks later I was at the mall. I'd run into some friends and we were standing around chatting when I heard the distinctive clicking sound of a woman trying to run in high heels on the ceramic tile floor. There was the same sexy looking woman, and se said "Oh Al, I'm so glad to run into you!" she said. "I wanted to tell you how much I love the photos. They're exactly what I wanted!" Then she threw her arms around me and gave me a big kiss full on the lips. "I'd love to stay and chat but I'm running late" she said as she dissapeared into the just before Christmas crowd. My friends were impressed! I didn't tell them that I'd just been kissed by a man.

 

I thought I'd throw that story into the thread to show that male nudes and female nudes aren't the only choices...LOL...and no, I didn't feel any sexual tension during the shoot.

[JDMvW]

I can't help myself, although it's a minor point, but "Quaker" is a bad choice for characterizing what is really Puritan or Evangelical fervor over this issue of nudity. While not libertines, the Quakers were and are rarely obsessed with this topic.

Of course the answer to what do these people do when they go to museums is fairly straight forward--until they "reclaim them for Christ," (their phrase) they won't go to them at all.

 

It's funny, but have I have missed it, or is there no reference to Robert Mapplethorpe in this thread? Surely the biggest outcry against nudity in photography in recent years is in reaction to his pictures.

[leericks]

I don't think the controversy over Mapplethorpe's work was regarding nudity. A self portrait with a bullwhip in his anus and his frank sado-masochistic photos go beyond what most people think of when we discuss nudity. If we were discussing pornography we might have mentioned him. He was a pretty good photographer but a better self promoter. The controversy surrounding his work more stemmed from public funding of what many saw as pornography.

 

Mapplethorpe was a good photographer but so are hundreds who post here. Separate him from his controversial subject matter and public personna and he is a face in the crowd. And he knew this. Here are some quotes from this ledgend in his own mind:

 

"Beauty and the devil are the same thing."

 

"Children are sexual beings, but it's an area that makes most people feel uncomfortable."

 

"My theory about creativity is that the more money one has, the more creative one can be."

 

"Whether it's an orgy or a cocktail party, I know how to do it."

 

Calculated, cunning or froshman philosophy major. Take your pick.

 

Pretty flowers though.

[zoewiseman]

Thomas,

 

You are of the thought that I'm "pushing" nudity. I'm not, I'm responding to a query from

the OP. I haven't started ANY discussions on PN about fine art nude photography, I've just

popped in when someone else does and answer questions. Usually late at night when I'm

getting ready to go to bed. It's nice to get all the frustrations out before one hits the hay.

Thanks for being my punching bag. *kidding*

 

Secondly, I have a problem with people creating MORAL boundaries that are so strict and

rigid that the rest of the world suffers for it. Fine, if someone doesn't want their kid seeing

nudity, then don't let them see it. But if other parents don't mind or are of the opinion that

there isn't anything wrong with it, then why when a teacher takes children to an art

museum is she fired for it because the museum had art pieces which had nudity in them?

Yes, this happened recently. This is the kind of mentality I have a problem with. The kind

of mentality that I feel is absolutely FREAKY.

 

And, you're the one who brought up the word SIN not I. So just relax. I'm actually agnostic

so it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. You just sounded like you were on a

pulpit so I thought I'd humor you.

 

And yes, I still think it's FREAKY! very FREAKY!

[don_e]

Let's not be diverted from the subject which is The Nude, and not "nuditiy".

 

 

TIA

 

Don E

[tomtomtom]

I'm with you there, Zoe. Some people are wound up so tight about the silliest of things. I'm agnostic too, but no need to get into that discussion here. :)

 

The point of the question is that the human form is obviously going to be the most aesthetic thing to our eyes, because every part of our brain is wired to seek healthy, attractive humans -- whether for survival or procreation.

 

The perfect human form has resonated since the dawn of humankind, perhaps never so worshipped as in Greek and Roman times, made lovely and romantically real by Renaissance painters, and revisited in the Body Culture of the early twentieth century. A sunset is lovely, but the human form speaks to something deeper in us, on many levels: aesthetic, sexual, geometric, dark-light sensing, tactile, survival-of-the-pack, existentially....

 

And we shouldn't feel bad about any of them in the least.

[beeman458]

For benefit of the forum, I'll touch only on this one point, for purpose of clarification.

 

"And, you're the one who brought up the word SIN not I."

 

Please reread my comment as you're taking my usage of the word out of context. I used sin (small letters) in the context of "problem." "Where's the problem." "Where's the sin."

 

"But what I'm asking for everybody to explore; why this "need" to condemn those who aren't into nudity? Where's the sin?"

 

I find most are only willing to see things their way as they demand I agree to see things their way and condemn me should I see things through any other prism than the one they provide.

 

Hope the above clarifies any misunderstanding on the above point in regard to how I used the word "sin."

[don_e]

I think there is an unresolvable divide between those who find the subject of a fine art nude to be nakedness or "nudity", and those who find it to be something else.

 

 

--

 

Don E

[twmeyer]

<i>..."Is it to create more commercially saleable work (which I'm sure nudes would be)?"</i><p>If you're considering fine art nudes as a money making venture... guess again. Especially if porn is not an option for you. You can make a ton of money producing porn, but fine art nudes is what professionals do for free, after the client has what they need and there's a beautiful model hanging around the studio. It adds some wow to the on-line portfolio, but rarely generates any considerable income (until your old and retired and can pull out those vintage shots of the famous models from back at the turn of the century).<p>Rethink your business model... t

[al_kaplan1]

Tom, is 2007 too late to be considered a turn of the century? I'll print up a mess of lightly selenium toned double weight fiber prints and my great grandchildren will be rich!

[don_e]

"If you're considering fine art nudes as a money making venture... guess again". Tom

 

A churn through Google images indicates that the term "Fine Art Nude" nowadays applies to rejects from Playboy-type magazines.

 

A simple "Don't stare into the camera, Hon.", would help.

 

--

 

Don E

[zoewiseman]

thomas,

i just did a drive by of your album. you have some really interesting work. i liked it a lot.

i didn't see many people though, so maybe you're just one of those photographers who

doesn't enjoy photographing people so much. so i can understand why venturing into fine

art nudes might be a huge leap for you. not a big deal. just psychology. you don't have to

get it. in fact, why not just ignore those who talk about fine art nudes and stick with

people who talk about buildings, flowers and landscapes? might cut the arguing down a

tad.

 

Al, I loved your story!

zoe

[zoewiseman]

oh and i hope that Thomas Andrew Hall doesn't think that last one was directed to him... it

was for Thomas Gardner. ;)

[tomtomtom]

Heh, for a second, I did.

[beeman458]

Zoe

 

Thanks for your kind words. (Warning, overly wordy response ahead)

 

"...you don't have to get it."

 

I "get it" more than most here are willing to accept. I see things in a bit of a different perspective as to nudes, art, photography, morals and cliche as I'd like to see a bit of acceptance on the part of the art community, those who are comfortable with nudes, to be more accepting of those in the art community, who aren't. There seems to be little acceptance of conservative or traditional thought in the art world and it's been this way, that I'm personally aware of, since the 70's and of course this lack of acceptance goes back further in art history, to the beginning I'm sure.

 

I see nudity in art as a person's artistic right to promote their agenda's (political or otherwise) but on an equal, 2-way street basis. Myself, I could give a rat's patootie about nudes in art as much of what has been discussed, as to it's genesis, I agree but what I don't agree with are two points. One, the lack of acceptance of those who are not willing to find a place for nudity in art. Why can't artists be offended by what they see in the art world and challenge the status quo. Why shouldn't artists be challenged in their thinking just as they feel compelled to shove their finger in the eye of society's status quo. A bit of turn around is fair play after all. It seems vogue to condemn non-progressive thinkers but the act of giving equal and opposite philosophically seems to be an act of artistic heresy. Hmmmmmm! One must honestly confront their own artistic bigotry on both fronts.

 

If a community doesn't wish for nudity in "their" museum galleries, bless them and move on to a more accepting community; one shouldn't feign shock when it's patently clear the offense was artistically intentional. Not everybody wants a museum or school next to their house and not everybody wants to look at body parts when cruising an art museum. Let them have their game, tain't no thang, as there's plenty of venues who are accepting of nudity in art. Second, the holding out of nude photography to be something that it's not, fresh and alive when it's, to me, old and stale because there's only so many ways you can photograph a mountain stream and there's only so many ways to light and photograph the human body, cliche. And yes, it does take "real" work to keep it "all" fresh and alive on any facet of the artistic diamond.

 

"...why not just ignore those who talk about fine art nudes and stick with people who talk about buildings, flowers and landscapes?"

 

Maybe it's jadedness on my part, maybe it's my old school value system at work as I haven't seen it all but I have seen too much. Most of these threads in regard to nudity I stay out of for the reason you mention in your above; a valid point. Usually where I'll step in is either to help the OP with their inner personal conflict, in a neutral way (I see a conflict that only you can resolve) or challenging, in a same said similarly neutral manner, those who like to "bash" (a popular term of the day) those who think differently then they; why the need to condemn? I find many here to be more closed minded in their thinking then they realize and sometimes a descenting voice of reason (and yes I do consider myself to be a countering voice of thoughtful reasoning) is a good thing so as to help keep things on a philosophically even keel.

 

Repeating my above:

 

"But what I'm asking for everybody to explore; why this "need" to condemn those who aren't into nudity? Where's the sin?"

 

"I find most are only willing to see things their way as they demand I agree to see things their way and condemn me should I see things through any other prism than the one they provide."

 

When I speak to folks who are uncomfortable with nudity in art, I don't just lay down and become their ottoman, I ask similar questions, such as where's the harm. Where's the injury? (Issues of pornography and sex slavery aside.) And yes they'll light off ballistically because they don't have a rational answer and they too will ask me to either sit down and shut up, or leave. :) And if you should wonder why no people in my pics....? :)

 

The art world needs to be a bit more sensitive towards others, who's money are being stolen, via taxation, to unwillingly "support" public museums. After all, aren't artists the "enlightened" ones; the seeing leading the blind?" If it's a completely private institution, the artists and curators can set, one hundred percent, their own standards but when support monies come from the general welfare, then the values of the general community equally and reasonably have to be considered, without prejudice of favor towards the artist, as it then becomes about community values first, artist's sensibilities second.

 

Nobody is stopping anybody from creating or displaying art. So where's the foul? The community is just limiting venues according to community standards; XXX movies Vs GP, prostitution Vs dating, illicit drug use Vs prescription based drug sales.

 

What's the big deal, unless there's an ulterior motive in which to "force" moral values (reeducation camp mentality/take the children from the parents while in school) on to an uncooperative general public? One really does need to question the motives of the supplier. I really do believe there's unexplored undercurrents which are not being fully explored in open conversations in regard to matters of this nature which should be discussed in an open, mature, philosophical nature which to me is what this forum is about.

 

Thanks again for your kind words as I too am locked (like many here, I'm sure), in an ever present and overly conscious struggle between the two worlds of cliche and content and to whom do I give my dues.

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

"You can make a ton of money producing porn"

 

You can also lose your shirt and much worse, depending on who you are doing business

with. I know because I saw it happen to a friend of mine whose studio I used to rent back

when I lived in Houston.

[Brad_]

<I>You can also lose your shirt and much worse, depending on who you are doing business

with.</I><P>

 

Sounds like an interesting story lurking in there. Can you expand on it?

[don_e]

"Where's the sin?"

 

In the clueless irrationality. In the hubristic presumption that they are the expression of community standards. In an 'esthetic' that can't distinguish between a beaver shot in the pink and an art nude, but can between a Weston art nude and a Weston bell pepper, because, you know, one has naked body parts in it.

 

And in the notion that it is the emotionally hysterical who get to stay in their homes, while the rest should vote with their feet.

 

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"In the clueless irrationality."

 

That was good Don, you made my point well. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

 

LOL

 

Rational; the uncommon sense. Who'd figure.

 

This has been an (I won't say enlightening thread) illuminating thread.

 

Thank-you.

 

---------------------------------

 

"What were the photographers thoughts AFTER their first nude shoot - was it releif, terror, fulfilment, commercial acheivement, etc?"

 

Guy, wishing you well as you sift through your concerns. Do what you feel comfortable with and at least take a moment or three to retrospect so as to better understand the underlying principals which have created the need/desire to create this genre of imagery.

 

Only with this understanding will you be able to comfortably move forward, what ever tact (as opposed to tack) you choose.

[don_e]

"...you made my point well" --Thomas

 

Yes. It cuts both ways.

 

--

 

Don E

[don_e]

Guy,

 

I can't answer your questions as some others here can. I have not photographed nudes, but I have drawn and painted them, male and female. There was no tete a tete with the model. These were classes with 4 to 8 others plus an instructor, so there was an objective distance between myself and the model.

 

You might as well assume some bad manners in gawking at a stranger's private parts. It passes. Time is money and there is work to do. You are going to become very familiar with the surfaces of that body, and acutely aware of the lighting, props, and pose. They will fill the time and your thoughts.

 

Here's a suggestion. Find a drawing class and join up if (usually somewhere towards the end of the course) it includes life drawing.

 

There are no doubt photography clubs for that, too (wasn't that why they came into existence?).

 

This will give you the cover of an objective space between you and the models. You can analyze your reactions and decide whether you want to pursue nude photography.

 

 

Good Luck,

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"And in the notion that it is the emotionally hysterical who get to stay in their homes, while the rest should vote with their feet."

 

"Yes. It cuts both ways."

 

Yes, yes the childish conversation of; "Is too," "Is not" comes forth because I have the temerity to suggest respecting opposing views outside the status quo; art think; how open minded of you. :)

 

I really do fall on my face in my continued misconception in regard to Progressives having a lock on open thought. One day I'll disappoint my eternal hope and realize that the bigotry...

 

"1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

 

... which abounds in the art world is not the exclusive domain of the ignorant.