beeman458 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Remember: tolerance is a two way street. "1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 <i>...is 2007 too late to be considered a turn of the century?</i> That's the century I was alluding to... the previous "turn" is an illustration of my point. Plus, remember those photos of Madonna made 30 years ago (ish)? Worthless then... Gold (Platinum) now. <p>Porn has a risk/reward ratio that is too high for me. I'll stick with the occasional nude that opportunity grants... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Some may find this an entertaining read, in regard to porn's profitability. http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/porn-maker-in-historic-building-draws/20070212095909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee 14 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 As a fairly new photographer, and one that is just starting to shoot nude/semi nude photo's, I thought this would be a good forum to check out... And it was, there is alot of info from alot of people with experience in photographing the nude here, so to you people, I say thank you for the info. To Thomas Gardner: After reading your comments, I decided to give your page the once over, and let me say, that you are an amazing photographer, with an interesting back story. (Yes, I took the time to read the Biography). I will not bash you for your choices of things to photograph, if you will not bash me on my choices... We are all entitled to our own opinions, and yours is obviously that art nude is over done and unnecessary. That is your choice, and doesn?t affect me at all, unless you start a petition to have all nude photo?s taken off of PN. (Which there are those out there that would try to have this done) I think the reason photographers like Zoe get upset when someone comes onto these boards and starts talking negatively about nude art, is that we are all very tired of the people who feel it is their ?god given right? to be the moral spokes person for society. Zoe lives in the USA (I think) and not unlike Canada, it is easier to just ban anything that may offend people, then to educate the public about it. Your points are valid, and are taken as your view point. I respect that, now please respect others points of view, and let us have our discussion about nude art, and getting started in it. Thank You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 One of these days it would be nice to have a discussion here about fine art nude photography. One that doesn't instantly segue into discussions of porn and "nudity". -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 "Your points are valid, and are taken as your view point. I respect that, now please respect others points of view, and let us have our discussion about nude art, and getting started in it." Darren, thanks for your thoughtful thoughts. You might want to reread my comments as I could care less about nudity in art, and I am being respectful of other's points of view but I do, and will continue to take umbrage when folks decide to come out of the trenches and "bash" those who don't feel comfortable with or decide to decry folks who have a differing moral take on art, nudity and what constitutes a cliche. Folks have a God given right, not a government given right, to control their community morals and if they don't want nudity in "their" museums, what's the big deal, unless one is "forcing" a minority agenda; tyranny of the few. These points need to be "openly" discussed when brought up in an online forum such as this forum. Otherwise you have preaching to the choir, everybody agreeing and no "real" intellectual conversation; growth. Most nude threads, as I stated earlier, I stay out of for the reasons you, Zoe and others have mentioned. How about folks here show folks of a different feather, the same respect; stay away from the condemnation (ad hominem) as you wish of others critiquing your philosophical position; a two way street, and I'll be happy to bugger off cause I'll have nothing of usefulness to add. :) Feel comfortable with what you photograph and this comfort will show through and work hard at making it fresh and original or you'll fall into the trap of the cliche. As a compromise, I'll promise to rein in my need to yell; "Warning!" "Cliche in the making!" Can't help myself on that one but I do promise to stop. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 And one that doesn't segue into discussions of community standards for the public display of images displaying "nudity". -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristine_walker Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 what drives me is the unmistakeable beauty of human skin, the texture light gives at different angle and intensities. One can take a picture of a naked person but not everyone has the eye for given life to a nude. the subject mater also has a way of encouraging the photographer to push the boundaries of what the basic elements of dark room photography can accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Tristine, I'd go further and say that the art nude can be as much a tactile as a visual experience. It is not easy to achieve that in any sort of photography. Weston did it with bell peppers. Your mention of the darkroom reminds me to mention that b&w is the traditional medium for fine art nudes, not perhaps a limitation, but the tradition. It's much the same in painting, where in fact the common examples of the art nude genre are drawings, not paintings. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iliafarniev Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Well. Well. These sensual beings. What are you going to do with them? How about this one. An unrealised subconscious efford to get rid of inborn sense of shame on the base of common sexual attraction? A scrounge? A ridiculous variation on basic screwing undercovered as bussiness behind a steamy window? A bacteial infection in certain parts? A bussiness? Some may simply be good at it. A human compassion from whatever side of camera? A transportation? A perverted or underdeveloped sexuality jammed into the frame of aesthetics? A combination of all these or whatever else? Well. Basically there is nothing wrong about it as long as one do not want to be free off, IMO it first get interesting then one actually trys to get out of it. Inside - every cubic inch of it is done. Why dont we ask Mr John Peri to tell us his opinion? Being the great master of the genre and a man fine articulation he must be able to enlightn us on this matter. Regards. Ilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leericks Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm sorry but I guess I may be a little behind in this discussion. I have photographed a lot of nudes but I never could develop the hubris to refer to any of my photos as "fine art". I prefer to leave that to others. I guess some of my earlier B/W photos might fit the cliche. So why photograph nudes? The reason I suggested that Guy do it three times or more was to allow him the self-discovery time. Not technique. The mind-time necessary to understand the emotions that swirl around one when he/she steps over the line most people never cross. Rather than answering questions like how do I light this subject nude photography - first- deals with more important questions, such as; how do I deal with intimacy. What are my views on respect. What is my intimate story and can I script it on film. What does this model want to say and can I help her/him say it. Who is my audience and how will they deal with my product. As with a portrait I want to collaborate with the model not just pose them. And I want to tell my story. It should be a good story. There have been a lot of great reasons for shooting nudes here. One I don't hear enough is to turn people on. I am not talking about hardcore porn. I am talking about what, for lack of a better term, we might call erotic photography. A photo that teams up with the viewer's imagination to create a pleasurable experience. Sometimes I want to use nude photography to present an image that I believe will titulate. Is this valid? I did a calendar shoot (nudes) for some clients awhile back and noticed something odd. In going through the shots they all gravitated toward the shots in which the model was relaxed and showing some emotion. They thought these shots were "sexier" than the highly contrived and carefully posed lighting exercizes. So Guy needs to shoot a bunch of nudes to learn about all of this stuff. And the answer to why to do it will lie in his understanding why he returns to some of the photos he took and enjoys looking at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 "I never could develop the hubris to refer to any of my photos as "fine art"." Lee See the Wikipedia entry on Fine Art. "The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline." The fine art nude is a specific discipline. Not all photographs of naked people or of "nudity" are fine art nudes. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 "Not all photographs of naked people or of "nudity" are fine art nudes." Which begs the question of "What is art?" Porn qualifies as fine art as it's a skill set that has, over the millennia, been refined as a skill set. Now it's working on the acceptance factor, which will come, for obvious reasoning. Sans a definition, everything is art to nothing's exclusion. :) Postmodernism is a terrible thing to waste. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluphoto Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Okay, suffice to say that I'm going to take Dons advice and try out a couple of sessions at least. I've never had to hire a model before for this (or any) studio shoot, so of course it's going to be a bit strange for me. You guys are right in that the challenge for me is not going to be technical (although that of course will come into it), but emotional. A few days ago I was very hesitant and thought that I'd be better out starting by photographing guys, but now I realise that intimacy and a prescribed amount of sexual tension is what makes a good photograph into a great one. It's this "prescription" that makes all the difference - do not exceed the staed dose! As it turns out, the very reason I was considering taking shots of guys for a start(ie to make me feel more comfortable) would be the exact thing which would work most against me! Who would have thought it! Although it was recommended to me that I take a few life drawing classes to give me experience in dealing with the intimacy of working with an unclothed model, I am now of the opinion that there is far more distance between the subject and artist when doing life drawing than there is when photographing. I think life drawing is more about recording anatomy, whereas fine art photography is far more about capturing the passion / serenity / sensuality / aggression / innocence etc of the scene. The wierd thing is that this would imply that the Photography is more "art" than the charcoal and chalk - completely the opposite of what I would have imagined! The other point is that there is often appears far more to a fine art image than the nude. Although very often the nude is the only subject of the scene (such as in the work of Andreas Bitesnich) I am seeing more and more "environmental" nudes, where the model may only occupy a tiny corner of the image, overshadowed by a huge tree, or waterfall, or wheatfield etc. Perhaps this isn't the same genre - can someone enlighten me? I would imagine that intimacy is far less of a concern during these environmental shoots. More of a concern would be keeping the situation private! I would guess that both model and photographer would undertake these more through a "work" ethos, where any sexual tension would be pretty minimal - if it existed at all. I guess that these environmental nudes would be exceptionally difficult to stay clear from the calendar glamour field, which is exactly the thing I most want to avoid. Would I be right in saying that for every fine art image which makes it into the pages of this gallery, there are a dozen (or more) others which didn't quite make the grade, but might be considered as glamour - or even stronger? You know the sort of thing, those shots which mistakenly show a little too much or are a little too provocative. What I'm trying to ask is this. While I'm striving to reach the fine art "grade" will I inevitably produce a lot of "trashy glamour" results along the way? Personally I can't stand the vast majority of glamour work and I'd like to avoid it if at all possible. Maybe it's just not possible. I remember seeing an image somewhere on PN of a girl apparently climbing into a washing machine. This shot left nothing to the imagination but was very artistically done and I can see how different views of this one image could be considered fine art, glamour, or stronger. I always thought that fine art should try to keep certain things under wraps, but this image couldn't be more revealing - although the model face was obscured with hear head being in the drum! I wish I could link it for you but I can't find it right now. That said, many fine art images consist almost of macro work on the models most private parts (male or female), yet they wouldn't look out of place hanging in a gallery. Don't worry, my first few sessions will definately not go down this road - I'd have to save up for a macro lens first - and a ring flash, if you'll pardon the pun;) I just want to thank all involved for giving me the confidence to try out this genre. I'll be sure to post some of the results in the gallery - if any of them "make the grade". best regards Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 "Not all photographs of naked people or of "nudity" are fine art nudes." Which begs the question of "What is art?" Thomas No it does not, dammit. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 "Not all photographs of naked people or of "nudity" are fine art nudes." Which begs the question of "What is art?" Thomas No it does not, dammit. --------------------------------- Sans a definition of "What's art?" one can't define the genre; "Fine art." It's the Catch-22 of the art world that we all have to live with. ----------------- Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 "The other point is that there is often appears far more to a fine art image than the nude." Guy Here's an example of a fine art nude photo. Although I haven't seen a print, it strikes me as a excellent example. It is also "environmental" (thanks, Zoe). http://zoewiseman.com/index2.htm "Would I be right in saying that for every fine art image which makes it into the pages of this gallery, there are a dozen (or more) others which didn't quite make the grade, but might be considered as glamour - or even stronger?" Yes. You can google image "fine are nude" and pull up many many Playboy rejects. Glamour, commercial or advertising photography have their own standards and styles. What makes a fine beauty photograph is not what makes a fine art nude photograph. I enjoy cheesecake. They aren't fine art nudes, either. Here are some fine art nudes by Edward Weston: http://www.artnet.com/artist/17760/edward-weston.html These are not fine art nudes: http://www.domai.com/unique/printsized/dariya.html -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Don, you're presenting what called "opinion." Dictionary.com: opinion 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. It's like the porn definition; "I know it when I see it." Subjective at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Thomas, it seems one of your goals on pnet is to hijack discussions of nude photography and turn them into something -- anything -- else. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Mapplethorpe was wide raging in his use of the term. :) As one conjures up the name "Weston," one must also place art in the historical context of past Vs contemporary times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 "it seems one of your goals on pnet is to hijack discussions of nude photography and turn them into something -- anything -- else." What I'm doing is expanding on the nature of the process, no hijacking going on. You're posting your thoughts and to me, they're incomplete, misguiding thoughts. So I'm expanding on them so as to cast light on your comments. You post examples of what is "Fine Art" as if it's the definitive nature of the genre yet the genre, in real terms can't be defined. You post samples representative of opinion as fact yet they're in truth only opinion. You post samples of a past era as if it's contemporary, losing context with historical present and how the steps showing how photographic art got where it is today as if nothing has happened in between contemporary times and by-gone eras changing the definition of Weston's efforts in the process. I feel at times as if time has stood still and the ghost of Stieglitz has entered the room. If you want to discuss "fine art nude," do so but do so in contemporary terms, not terms from a distant past and the way "you" want things to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 An 18th century nude by Boucher, a 19th century nude by David, a 20th century nude by Weston, a 21st century nude by Wiseman are of the same genre. A 16th century portrait by Titian, a 17th century portrait by Rembrandt, an 18th century portrait by Gainsborough, a 19th century portrait by Dauguerre, a 20th century portrait by Avedon, a 21st century portrait by Leibovitz are of the same genre. And so on. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 A rough preliminary charcoal sketch on a scrap of paper authenticated to have been done by Rembrandt would be worth a fortune today but that doesn't make it "great art". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Don, you misuse words to your convenience. Dictionary.com: genre: "1. a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic music." Please make note of the two words, "particular form." To compare Titian (who's work I admire for it's social complexity) to Avedon (who's work is laughably - no disrespect intended - simplistic by comparison) is like comparing the trunk of a car to the box of a fifty-two footer. They both have the capability of carrying commercial goods but clearly do not employ the same "form" or "technique," therefore, they're not of the same "genre." "You post examples of what is "Fine Art" as if it's the definitive nature of the genre yet the genre, in real terms can't be defined." Please make note of the context in which I use the word "genre." "Fine Art" has no "real" (nailable) definition; borders. Just as nude photography is a style without borders and to try and ascribe a term of egocentric convenience, "Fine Art," to a simplistic concept or style (nude) is self-serving at best. Who holds the definition of what constitutes "Fine Art" in their hands? On who's stone tablet, have these words been inscribed? A suggestion to the OP, cruise the erotic folder on photosig.com, as others have suggested. You'll find a wide range of nudes in which to give you guidance in regard to the gamut of what might be called "nude" photography and these images will give you insight as to who and what you are and what road you'll want to go down; comfort index. Here's an interesting folder. Warning: nude images inside this folder which feature S&M and may not be appropriate for the weak of mind. http://www.photosig.com/go/users/viewportfolio?id=20872 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 "Don, you misuse words to your convenience. Dictionary.com: genre:" Thomas, "genre" has several specific meanings regarding the visual arts. A common dictionary definition is not useful. "Please make note of the two words, "particular form." To compare Titian (who's work I admire for it's social complexity) to Avedon (who's work is laughably - no disrespect intended - simplistic by comparison) is like comparing the trunk of a car to the box of a fifty-two footer." You have confused genre with style and talent or skill. Let's try this again: Boucher drew nudes in a different style than David, who drew nudes in a different style than Weston, who's photographs are of a different style than Wiseman's, but they are of the same genre. You seem to think the nude is some kind of outrider of the western tradition, when in fact it *is* the western tradition. No nude, no art, no western tradition. -- Don E 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