What drives a Photographer of the nude ?

[beeman458]

"A common dictionary definition is not useful."

 

Especially if it gets in the way. :)

[beeman458]

"You seem to think the nude is some kind of outrider of the western tradition,..."

 

Not at all. Considering nudity goes all the way back to the beginning of time, in all cultures, of all times. Nudity is a ubiquitous condition.

 

"a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique,..."

 

I'll refer back to the definition as I don't see doffing one's clothing to be a genre as you can do portraiture (genre) with clothes on or off in pen, paint or photograph. Therefore, nudity becomes a sub-class to the genre (category) portraiture, as opposed to the other way around, where nude becomes the state of being.

[don_e]

"I don't see doffing one's clothing to be a genre as you can do portraiture "

 

Well, there you go. Again your intense need to equate "nudity" with the nude. How do you define the nude? A work that displays tits, ass, or pubes?

 

The Athenians created the first genre, the nude, the Romans, the portrait, the Dutch, the landscape and still life. The genres were recognized and codified, became the subject of (often heated) debate, spawned refusals and movements. They are at the core of the dynamic of western art. We see today the development of new genres in photography, photojournalism for example. Is photojournalism fine art, that is, a genre? What about street? The snapshot esthetic?

 

You are refusing to even consider this dynamic, the life's blood of visual arts, accepting its history which makes the reality that you think you see in the viewfinder and hope to capture.

 

Do you consider yourself to be an artist by profession or avocation? If you don't, then there is no reason for you to be concerned about all this. If you do, you need to study up on your chosen endevor.

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"I don't see doffing one's clothing to be a genre as you can do portraiture "

 

"Well, there you go. Again your intense need to equate "nudity" with the nude. How do you define the nude? A work that displays tits, ass, or pubes?"

 

Don, you have such a grasp on reality. LOL

 

Nude/nudity, sans outer clothing. I don't sub-define as it's all the same; walking around Yoda butt naked. What one's intent, is the deciding factor as to how's it's perceived which requires the addition of another descriptor.

 

Nude: 1. naked or unclothed, as a person or the body.

 

Nudity: 1. the state or fact of being nude; nakedness.

 

You really do need to work on this overt need to twist the English language as a language serves all (commonality/universality), not just the needs of one.

 

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

 

"The Athenians created the first genre, the nude, the Romans, the portrait, the Dutch, the landscape and still life."

 

The Chinese and those from India and Africa might take issue with your Eurocentric ideologies. :)

 

"You are refusing to even consider this dynamic, the life's blood of visual arts, accepting its history which makes the reality that you think you see in the viewfinder and hope to capture."

 

Huh! Yeah! That's it, I'm a country bumpkin, without a historical clue. :)

 

"Do you consider yourself to be an artist by profession or avocation?"

 

Advocation? Hmmmmmmm! :)

 

Neither, I wanted to be a photographer and ended up a "reluctant" artist cause I got no other place to go. :)

 

"If you don't, then there is no reason for you to be concerned about all this. If you do, you need to study up on your chosen endevor."

 

You funny and entertainingly arrogant person. :)

 

"I'm too stupid, stupid, stupid." :)

 

Now that you've thoughtfully informed me how I'm too stupid/ignorant/detached or uninvolved to be aware, moving forward, how does this notification process apply to the OP's question?

[don_e]

"The Chinese and those from India and Africa might take issue with your Eurocentric ideologies. :)"

 

I suspect they would understand what is meant by the western tradition, even if you do not.

 

"You really do need to work on this overt need to twist the English language as a language serves all (commonality/universality), not just the needs of one."

 

The language I have used is "technical" not "common". It is not pitched to the common. You may need examples: "dodge and burn", "toning", "circle of confusion".

 

"Now that you've thoughtfully informed me how I'm too stupid/ignorant/detached or uninvolved to be aware, moving forward, how does this notification process apply to the OP's question?"

 

I have informed you of no such thing. I asked do you consider your occupation or your avocation (a subordinate occupation pursued in addition to one's vocation especially for enjoyment) to be art. Do you consider yourself an artist?

 

If so, then you face a difficulty if you work in the western tradition, if you disparage the nude, seeing it as a collage of tits, ass, and pubes.

 

I consider myself an artist in the western tradition, practicing several disciplines, none of which involves the nude at this time, and may not again.

 

Except for you, there are many replies to the OP's question, including mine. He writes he is interested in "the realm of the fine art nude", further on he writes he is especially interested in the "environmental" in regard to fine art nudes. I refer him to Zoe's website where there is a nice display of 'environmental nudes', and definitely they are fine art nudes; some may be definitive of that "realm".

 

Although I don't do nude work, I have a tribal fusion dance group, Desert Veils, as a client. Much of the photography involved takes place in "the environment", the desert, and I am extremely interested in the human figure in that context. Thus, I am very interested in Zoe's work, and in Weston's (because he could manage to photograph deserts and nudes with the same eye and esthetic).

 

I can appreciate your 'refusal'. The history of western art is full of refusals. What I do not care for is your dismissal of western art as nothing more than bare-assed nakedness. Refusal can be motivating and intense. Mere dismissal is simply a bland sluggishness.

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"Except for you,"

 

Then you need to reread my comments as your myopia is getting in your way. :)

[don_e]

Replies that "apply to the OP's question" which were about:

 

"the realm of the fine art nude", environmental nudes, and about the psychology of the photographer shooting nude sessions.

 

 

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"Mere dismissal is simply a bland sluggishness."

 

Yes, "dolt" or "doltish" might be a better choice of wording.

 

"a dull, stupid person; blockhead."

 

Cyrano de Bergerac was an entertaining read, for his rapier like wit, not to mention his fine command of the rapier.

 

I'm secure in my understanding as it's neither couched in ignorance nor egocentricity.

 

I must amend as I unintentionally left the Assyrian's off my list of those predating Greek contributions whom might take umbrage with your Eurocentric thinking as in; life before Hellenic culture.

 

You keep trying to "nit" everything as if there's the only one venue of articulated thought.

 

Wishing you well in this matter. I'll reiterate perusing the erotic folders of photosig.com to get a better idea what the OP feels comfortable with. Comfort first, historical perspective second and yes, I agree, it never hurts to have context of history in your creative mind.

[beeman458]

"Replies that "apply to the OP's question" which were about:"

 

That's because I was responding to his last.

 

"What were friends and families opinions of photographers starting out in the field of fine art nude - were any concerns overcome after a while?"

 

His reasonable concerns. :)

 

You really do need to stop parsing this stuff as you're missing the bigger picture, the OP's concerns as you try to personalize your responses towards me and take away from the OP's question.

 

Shame on "both" of us.

[don_e]

"a dull, stupid person; blockhead."

 

That might be a good description if you are simply dismissive of the issues. I obviously prefer bland and sluggish. If the shoe don't fit, don't wear it.

 

'Refusal' is another matter. It implies motivation and alternatives working within the genre or against it. Energy. 'Refusal' is another technical term, btw (Salon des Refusés), 'secessionist', as in Photo-Secession, might do as well.

 

It is not necessary to think with these terms at all. Many fine painters and photographers do not, not only non-Europeans but Europeans who are not interested enough to even be dismissive, but simply work their art.

 

However, the OP wrote "the realm of the fine art nude" and that realm is the western tradtion, bred in the bone. Thus what I've written above is relevant.

 

The OP likely used the term not in that way at all. Now he knows better and can find out more, or not if he pleases. If he aims for a career, it will serve him well to at least know that "Fine Art Nude" has a specific meaning, and not just good non-porn photos of naked people.

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

" The OP likely used the term not in that way at all."

 

Not sure what you're going on about as maybe you missed his point. Here's what he wrote further down the thread.

 

"I'm just a guy who worries too much about what other people think and don't want to be looked upon as a guy with questionable morals who likes taking "girly" pics."

 

Wishing you, Don, well as I'm going drop out for I've addressed the issue of concern and now wish Guy well,with his efforts. :)

[don_e]

"I'm just a guy who worries too much about what other people think and don't want to be looked upon as a guy with questionable morals who likes taking "girly" pics." "

 

Well, "the realm of fine art nudes" is not the realm of girly pics. It is a well-respected profession in the arts. There is nothing to be done about what other people think of anything. Afaict, the only place to make a career photographing nudes that is not commercial photography, is the fine art nude. There has always been a market for high quality porn (or there once was), but I am not familiar with it.

 

--

 

Don E

[bluphoto]

Wow, those photosig images are certainly err... interesting. Don't quite think I should be looking at that on my work computer! Time to delete those temporary internet files before the next IT audit!

 

That said, I'm getting the idea that the subject will, more often than not, see undertaking such work purely as a job, and will have little involvement on an emotional level - likely less even than the photographer - do we find that to be the case? And if someone can spread their legs and attach clothes pegs to their labia for "work" then I see no reason why another (or the same) professional model would worry too much about "merely" disrobing in front of the camera.

 

I think I have therefore got it straight in my mind that it is indeed about two parties working together to produce the image that the photographer has in mind, rather than having a naked girl squirming around on set while a guy behind a camera takes photographs.

 

It's almost as if we maybe even need to ADD a little "artificial" sexual tension to the situation to come out with the goods, as I would imagine that often it can be TOO MUCH like a "business" - both treating it solely as a job. I was at a friends stag night a few weeks ago when we ended up in a table dancing club. The girls were gorgeous for sure, and you pays your money and gets your dance, but the complete disinterest in their face speaks volumes.

 

Now I have the exact opposite problem than when I started this thread! Instead of being worried that I might have "inappropriate thoughts" for want of a better phrase, I'm now worried that my shoot might be more "hello, kit off, pose please, three rolls of film, kit back on, shake hands, thank you, door closed".

 

I need to just get a grip and get on with it. You guys have taught me two very important lessons...

 

1. Don't worry about your emotions too much in Photography, whether shooting portraits - an apparent subset of which is shooting nudes - or landscapes, or macro, or product or whatever. My emotions are what they are and it is these very emotions that I am trying to capture on film, so that my audience can feel them too when viewing the images.

 

2. Don't ever post anything on Photo.Net again with the word "nude" in the subject line. The damn thing will go on for weeks!

 

all the best.

 

Guy

[beeman458]

"Wow, those photosig images are certainly err... interesting. Don't quite think I should be looking at that on my work computer! Time to delete those temporary internet files before the next IT audit!"

 

Never thought of work when I posted the link but links of that nature are deserving of a warning; online protocol. Do get the cache flushed as one doesn't need troubles on this nature, work related.

 

"The girls were gorgeous for sure, and you pays your money and gets your dance, but the complete disinterest in their face speaks volumes."

 

It will be up to you, to establish the connection, to overcome this "professional" distance.

 

"Now I have the exact opposite problem than when I started this thread! Instead of being worried that I might have "inappropriate thoughts" for want of a better phrase, I'm now worried that my shoot might be more "hello, kit off, pose please, three rolls of film, kit back on, shake hands, thank you, door closed"."

 

The mechanical nature of it all.

 

"2. Don't ever post anything on Photo.Net again with the word "nude" in the subject line. The damn thing will go on for weeks!"

 

All in the name of entertainment. :)

 

Look forward to you posting your thoughts, after your first three shoots.

 

First being the "shocker." Second, reliving the past. And the third, getting into the groove in regard to the mechanical nature of it all.

[al_kaplan1]

I've never been really driven to shoot nudes, although I have done it.

 

I was on the phone last night with a woman I've known for nearly forty years, going back to when she was my best friend's landlady. She loves dogs and he had a dog also who got along with her dogs. She sold the house here a few years ago and moved to St. Petersburg, but for some reason she calls me every few months, always asking how my kids are doing. She never had children.

 

At 67 she's a few years older than I am. When I first met her she was still in her around thirty and working on Miami Beach as a high priced call girl. One of her regular haunts back then was the exclusive Palm Bay Club, which was also one of my photography clients. I've never been to bed with her. I couldn't afford her rates anyway...LOL...nor did I ever photograph her nude, although I've got some shots of her clothed and playing with her dogs. We've been good friends over the years. She's no longer a "working girl". She'd invested her money wisely during her high earning years. She still has dogs.

 

When she called last night I thought of this discussion and mentioned that it might make for an interesting series of photographs to not only shoot some nudes of her at 67, but also of any of the "girls" she may still be in touch with after all these years. She declined my offer.

[brucecahn]

I have been photographing the nude for 41 years. To me it is the ultimate subject. Why? Hard to say but here are some possibilities:

1)It is the most difficult subject. Much harder than clothed pictures. 90% of the nudes published are terrible. But it takes a developed eye to see the difference.2) I like the subject more than, say, buildings, children, or animals. To me the only subject as interesting is landscape. By the way after a few years the situation of being aroused by the model goes away. 3)I am lazy and prefer the subject to come to me. Also I use ULF cameras. It is hard to drag around an 11x14 or 16x20. The model comes to the studio. 4)"the proper study of mankind is man" And this is accomplishable through nude and portrait photography.

Additional thoughts: Try not to use a flash. Daylight or tungsten is much better. 1 light is preferable. Large format is far better. You have to do more than stand the average model in front of a camera. Use your brain--this is the challenge. So many thousands of serious nudes have been done, do some that are different. Check my site, www.brucescameras.com, the photo page for some good nudes.

[beeman458]

"But it takes a developed eye to see the difference."

 

Not trying to trap you, but what you wrote above is bias thinking. If it takes a "developed" eye, on what bases do you consider this eye developed? By who's standards do you evaluate in order to see this "difference?"

 

I'm always wary of showing my work in that one is welcome to view my efforts but I'm not concerned how their bias influences their think; critique.

 

Don't misunderstand the intent of my thinking in that I feel an honest person, being honest with themselves, will "automatically" work on "improving" (giving emotional depth and working on technicalities) their efforts. What ever improving might mean; more bias?

 

Maybe you can expand on your comment above. That would be kind.

[lightwait]

Thomas said: "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."

 

Thomas's question suggests that we ought not care about the offense a person takes to nudity. My sense of offense (he seems to think) is mine, it's personal, it's often a result of my closely-held beliefs -- surely it's no skin off your ass if I take offense (and suffer quietly)? I take this to (roughly) be the meaning of his "irrespective of the rational of their thought" qualifier.

 

>>Why should anybody care if someone is offended by nudity?<<

 

Because, subjectively, offending or being offended are less desirable states than not offending and not being offended. The reasoning goes something like: desirable states are better enjoyed than undesirable ones.

 

Being offended entails an offender. But in the case of the photographer of nudes, the offender has done nothing to offend. So what "we" get is some poor soul suffering (existing in a state of offense to something) due to beliefs that he or she is powerless to justify (except to the like-minded faithful, and only within the boundaries of that symbol system), but quite willing to Rationalize.

 

It's really quite nuts; it creates two victims where none before existed: the suffering victim who must endure the fruit of his or her borrowed beliefs, and the person being accused (without justification) of being an agent of harm, the photographer of nudes, who must now endure the irrational fruits of victim 1's belief system.

 

The problem can be solved, it would seem, without either agent abandoning his or her beliefs. The solution lies in the would-be victim decreasing the territory within which his or her faith is brought to bear.

 

You can believe anything on faith you wish, you just aren't allowed to extend them, through action, into the public sphere and across it to the personal spheres of others, realizing harm, in the service of doing justice to your god myth.

[beeman458]

"It's really quite nuts; it creates two victims where none before existed: the suffering victim who must endure the fruit of his or her borrowed beliefs, and the person being accused (without justification) of being an agent of harm, the photographer of nudes, who must now endure the irrational fruits of victim 1's belief system."

 

"The problem can be solved, it would seem, without either agent abandoning his or her beliefs. The solution lies in the would-be victim decreasing the territory within which his or her faith is brought to bear."

 

Note in pre-school development jacket:

 

Does not play well with others. Thinks the playground is his exclusive domain and lacks public tolerance for ideas different from his own.

[don_e]

Thomas, how should the playground be shared?

 

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"Thomas, how should the playground be shared?"

 

According to the values of the regional ruling junta; the moral and ethics of the prevailing general public.

 

Let those in San Francisco, set their standards. And let those in New York, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Mexico City, there's of their choosing. Let those in the Backwaters set their moral tone and let those in Cosmopolitan urban environments, set their's.

 

By doing this, much to many's chagrin, it allows for a more natural artistic expression where Dogma is given an eclectic chance. When one value dominates another, you don't have representation. But where you have regional representation, of values, then you have "real" artistic expression not a pseudo, forced upon the local unwilling (oppression), standard.

 

If textiles is the dominant force, then let this force dominate the local display halls; museums. If religious fervor is the dominating force, then so be it, let this artistic expression dominate the local venues. Let the general will of the people be dominate as opposed to pandering to the few and if Postmodern is the dominant thought, majority, then let the hallow halls of exhibition (museums) put on their grandest displays.

 

The above which I responded to is an example of a what happens when insecurity demands things be only one way at the intentional exclusion of others as opposed to sharing the artistic environment with many differing views; moral or otherwise. This cry of slippery sloped threats to artistic freedom is conveniently specious at best because these criers of artistic Armageddon intentionally and overtly exclude (segregate) those who have religion at their moral base so they will be the final victor for self-serving egocentric purposes.

 

Why should Progressives have a lock on art as if it's their exclusive domain? Nobody is stopping art from being created as what I suggest only temporarily limits, regionally, that what local sensibilities "allow," in their venues. What, you think Progressives are any more secure in their behavior than Modernists/Traditionalists and only Progressives should have the final word? Sharing is the ultimate act of trust/faith. :)

 

I'd like to see venues representing "all" forms of thought, not just one side of the self-serving coin or another; balance. I'd like to see respect for differing points of view, representing all artistic persuasions from the level of the curator on down. But I also live with PollyAnna pricipals where things work, people think and we can all get along and no, I'm not naive so I do push for inclusive behavior, on all sides. :)

[don_e]

"Thomas, how should the playground be shared?"

 

"According to the values of the regional ruling junta; the moral and ethics of the prevailing general public.

 

Let those in San Francisco, set their standards. And let those in New York, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Mexico City, there's of their choosing. Let those in the Backwaters set their moral tone and let those in Cosmopolitan urban environments, set their's."

 

So, your answer is: we can't, or we won't, so let's adjourn each to our own (apparently designated by someone or something) playground.

 

--

 

Don E

[beeman458]

"So, your answer is: we can't, or we won't, so let's adjourn each to our own (apparently designated by someone or something) playground."

 

"(apparently designated by someone or something)"

 

Interesting, as in cute. Why? Your above is being stated as if governing bodies and regional sensibilities don't exist. This "someone or something" is a very visible governing body held sway to the electorate; very non-enigmatic.

 

Simply put, let regional majorities decide their artistic fate. Why should this be upsetting; besides the obvious refrains of the egocentric artistic sky is falling? This regional majority is an underlying societal principal in all we do (law; codification of ethics and morality) so why do those of the art world hold themselves out to lesser expectations as if somehow their sensibilities are superior to others? If one region wants, let them and if one region doesn't, so be it. Why this need to shove it down people's throats to the point of, we're taking over here and if you don't like it, don't come; marginalization. Pretty militaristic, selfish and self-centered (egocentric) behavior at the least. Very one way. One country, one playground, many different facets.

 

Locally, there are several open basketball courts for everybody's use in the community. During the evening hours, the better players come out, play ball and take over the courts for their enjoyment. Should these players be required to pick up all who come along or should they be able to represent regional talent; free choice? Society sets the playing standards as to what behavior they'll allow; city code. state/federal law. If you don't like the above basketball behavior, take time to grieve at the next city council meeting. And if the city council fails to respond, organize and vote the uncooperative council members out of office and install your power base, having the miscreants thrown off the basketball courts due to changes in city park usage codes you've championed. And if you don't get your way, get over it and get on with it, or become a better basketball player but the public sphere has decided.

 

For all the photographically restricted behavior which is terrorist related, I've not been stopped once. Why? Instead of whining, I find non-controversial things to quietly go about photographing, without incident. When you come to realize that none of this is going keep you from dying, you'll relax and put forth effort towards that which is important.

[don_e]

The issue is sharing the playground (you brought it up, not me), not conceding it to the local bullies and going away over to some other playground. The playgrounds in your examples are cities, although you only named those presumably of one kind. We don't have your list of examples of other kinds of 'playgrounds'. You also refer to regions, another geographical unit.

 

Your bias here appears to be that artists are a class of "rootless cosmopolites", who can vote with their feet and move to San Francisco if they don't like it in <insert name of city>. They aren't members of the community, they don't have roots, they don't have families, they don't have traditions. So, it is not really bullying if the social power makes life difficult for them. They're just mean spirited for not getting out now, so you gotta apply some pressure.

 

Where does this end, this kind of "sharing"?

 

I understood the original you replied to with the playground sharing, to mean, don't go looking for an excuse to cause grief. If you don't like what is exhibited, don't enter the gallery, the exhibition, nor prevent others from entering. At the present time, the gallery, the exhibition site, has another game being played. Wait til its over, if you don't want to play.

 

That is, we go about our business. We wait our turn and don't play through another's game. We are civil to each other. We share.

 

--

 

Don E

[leericks]

Thomas we have tried for generations to maintain local control, free of federal intervention. What did it get us? Creationism taught as science in public schools. Separate but equal racial laws. Felony arrests for homosexual behaviors. Banned films and censored artwork. All examples of "enacting local standards into law". Nevertheless I can sympathize with your concern about where to put the bar when public money is at stake. I think that common sense can prevail even in the most conservative communities. Artwork with limited public interest should be assigned limited resources. Not banned but rather assigned its place relative to the mission of the public venue. The homoerotic photos of Mapplethorpe should and will get far more square feet in San Francisco than it warrants in South Dakota. Warnings are appropriate. Patrons should be able to visit a museum without accidentally having their 8 year old daughter see sex acts.

 

I am a Christian and therefore sensitive to your position regarding nudity. I photograph nudity from time to time and am generally not offended by it. I believe we would benefit from a more liberal view of the subject. I think most Europeans have it about right in that regard.

 

I am also sensitive to your concern that the position of religious people is under assault today. (Well, some of them anyway.) Tolerance, as taught by the far left, ends at Christianity. That is the one unprotected belief system in the eyes of many of my fellow liberals. I find it comical that many of my friends on the left decry Christian values but support radical Islamic states. They ignore the open hostility toward women displayed as public policy by some of their sweetheart Muslim states.

 

This kind of hypocrisy on both sides leads us to embrace a system of governance that defers to the Constitution as interpreted by the federal courts to ensure that minority views are respected. Yours and mine as religious people and others who embrace a more secular value system.

 

Religious people like us are free to express our displeasure with any artwork. We can withhold our support for institutions that offend us. We can teach our children and fellow religious people not to support offensive art. There are a lot of us. People, institutions and governments will pay attention when we speak as a body. But it is our responsibility to scrupulously protect and respect the rights of the minority.