The Concept Of Nude Photography

[jtk]

I don't get it. This is 2007, right? Are we back in Kansas now?

[brucecahn]

Dave: I have closed down the site because it was losing money. The store is busy, but most sales take place on the phone or here in person.

Ellis: I agree with most of the comments you have made on this site except the one about power. I have been sculpting, drawing painting and photographing the nude for 47 years. I do not feel powerful. It is, simply, my subject

[michaelkh]

"I got someone to display their naked flash to me"

 

I wouldn't recommend that. Very hard shadows.

 

(Sorry Ellis, just joshing. couldn't resist).

[petemillis]

Nudes? Well, they don't really do it for me - I'd rather see a picture of a pretty girl dressed in snowboard trousers and jacket :)

 

However, when I was younger and more innocent I would just see a picture of a female nude a bit naughty, and I couldn't even look at a male nude in case everyone thought I was gay. However, now that I'm more grown up and married with kids, seeing either female or male nude "portraits" I tend to think of them in the same way from a photography point of view. But then when it gets to the more erotic stuff like in those magazines in the barbers, then i can only look at the females!

[jtk]

"...when it gets to the more erotic stuff like in those magazines in the barbers.."

 

Barbers? I was right. We're back in Kansas. :-)

[jgalyon]

Bruce, If you've been working with the same model since 1960...assuming she was of legal age at that time...she would be at least 65 years of age now. You've aged...she's aged... Perhaps it might be nature and time that has diminished the issue of being sexually aroused while photographing her? ;)

[jgalyon]

Zoe... i can't believe for a second that you don't understand what the guy is saying. i'm familiar with your work as a model and as a photographer(and an admirer of both)... and after your years of work in both fields, i find it impossible to believe that you aren't well acquainted with this issue. the naked female form and sexual thoughts/feeling are inextricably linked. doesn't mean that everytime someone sees such a photo that the immediate and exclusive reaction is sexual arousal, or that the photographer's purpose for shooting the pic is for that purpose. as for my personal reaction to photos of nude females, it's always a mix for me...and i believe it is for most men if they'd be honest. i can see an unclothed woman and appreciate her beauty and the beauty of the photograph, minus the sexual aspect. but if for whatever reason, i find the model to be attractive, sexually appealing,etc., ... ya can deny the sexual attraction, but you can't turn it on and off like a light switch. some of it may be sexual orientation affected in large part by our cultural upbringing...some of it is pure biology.

[asher]

I urge you to acquire a copy of Ralph Gibson's book "Refractions". There are many great short

essays, including one on photography of the nude. In fact Ralph's giving a workshop on nude

photography either right now or very soon at the Vancouver Photographic Workshops:<p>

<a href="http://www.vancouverphotoworkshops.com/course_listing/

ralph_gibson_workshop_2007.htm">http://www.vancouverphotoworkshops.com/

course_listing/ralph_gibson_workshop_2007.htm</a>

[davidnoblephotography]

Hmm... i seem to have started something here...

[david j.lee]

i like nudes. even artistic ones.

[zoewiseman]

Galyon... of course i understand what the guy is saying. although i feel it is a tad bit

immature. i was kind of trying to be humorous in my response because i thought the

question was filled with humor. i've never really encountered a photographer who acted

like this on a shoot, but then you have to take a look at who i've worked with in order to

understand that. i was blessed with photographers who weren't doing it to "get off" they

do it because they must, it's what they do, they're artists. it doesn't have anything to do

with sex but everything to do with creation. i find it to be completely a-sexual, an act of

freedom, natural, and yes spiritual in a sense when you think of the beauty of human

beings - a celebration of humanity. turning it into something to do with sex, for me,

negates the beauty or the innocence of art for art's sake. yes, it is empowering - no it isn't

a notch to put in your belt when you photograph a woman or a man just to say "hey i took

a photo of someone naked." that's immature behavior. and i would warn any model not to

work with photographers like this, as they probably aren't going to get good photos if they

do. and i would suggest to photographers that if they are doing it because of sexual

attraction not to even shoot nudes as they will never see past the sexual aspects and they

will never create art. one must do it because of love of art and love of human beings. there

really isn't anything creepier for a model to put up with than a photographer acting like a

GWC. that is, unless the model enjoys it. and looking at the porn industry, there are a lot

that do. most models, however, DO NOT. it's a shame that these questions are posed to

those who work with cameras to create art. it's never posed to those who use paint

brushes. i worked for alex beard, peter beard's nephew, for a series of paintings he did. no

one asked him about a sexual attraction when they looked at his paintings. and hey, that's

the longest i've ever been nude posing - roughly 6 days, 8 hours a day spent nude for one

piece - and there were 3 pieces total of myself. and no, there were no sexual advances,

connotations nor unprofessionalism exuded the entire time. i think we talked about

physics mostly, time travel and adventures to other solar systems. if that were model and

photographer instead of model and painter, i think some people would have asked if we

had a thing for each other. so, i think people need to grow up and get over it.

 

and thank you for the compliments about my work. it's really appreciated. :)

[zoewiseman]

oh, and georgia o'keefe really out does maplethorpe in terms of sexuality in flowers.

maplethorpe only wished he were as good. just as one can sexualize flowers, one can also

desexualize a woman or a man. that was the point i was trying to make when i spoke about

flowers, thought i'd try to let people open their mind around it just a bit.

[beauh44]

Here's my unasked-for .02 cents: I wanted to learn portrait photography. So I asked myself what kinds of portraits I'd like to look at and my answer definitely came back "female!" (Yeah, I talk to myself - and if I'm not out in 5 minutes, I'm comin' in after me!)

 

Anyway, my first few shoots started out with clothed models for TFP and as I learned more, I began to shoot models who weren't opposed to nudes. In fact, one of my first nude shoots was at the suggestion of the model - not me.

 

Now maybe if I'd started out when I was 20 doing this, I might've gotten a bit "distracted" while shooting some of the ladies I've been fortunate enough to work with. But in my current state of senility, the *last* thing on my mind when I'm shooting a model - clothed or not - is, well... you know.

 

That's because I can't chew gum and walk at the same time. It's all I can do to make sure I've got the bazillion things right to take a half-assed shot (let alone a decent one) thinking about the lighting, composition, camera settings, the *next* shot and how I can improve it, etc, etc.

 

And I also don't buy into the idea that men are necessarily the only ones who like looking at the female nude. In fact, it's been my experience that we guys just look at them differently, perhaps, but the ladies like 'em too - even if they're as heterosexual as the day is long. (I'm not sure I can say the same about male nudes but I'm not going there with this discussion)

 

I'm also not aware that I'm power-tripping about it either; I don't *think* I am. I'm pretty sure that would come across to the subject if I were and very few subjects would want to come back. Now perhaps some of the models I've shot were, but I'm not paying attention to that and I just don't care if they are anyway.

 

I loved Jeff Bishop's quote about the topless beach and I think he's absolutely right. I've only been to one once and it seemed to me that all the people I'd *like* to have seen nude weren't and vice-versa. ;-)

[beauh44]

Zoe said it better than I did. ;-)

[maris_rusis]

I guess that the sexual connotations of the nude figure may in part derive from its unfamiliarity and its transgressiveness against societal norms.

 

I have worked extensively with the nude but my models are all nudists. They spend most times (weather permitting) unclad in the presence other unclad people for years and decades. When I ask them about their personal attitudes to the nexus between nudity, photography, and sexual attraction the answers tend to be along the lines:

 

Nudity and photography? Ok if it is well done otherwise its boring.

 

Photography and sex? Maybe some people get off on it but spare us the details.

 

Nudity and sex? No particular connection. If you are attractive, personable, and pleasant then your prospects are darn good; clothed or unclothed.

[hjoseph7]

"Nudes? Well, they don't really do it for me - I'd rather see a picture of a pretty girl dressed in snowboard trousers and jacket :)"

 

It depends on he nude.

 

I get your point though, it's like drooling over the secretary at the office, until you see her at the beach or in the Gym.

 

One thing about nudes if it's not done properly(shadows, lighting, tecture) it can get pretty close to Porn.

[davidnoblephotography]

Hey - I think Ms. Wiseman must have a problem with me...

 

Zoe, what is this forum about? What is any forum about? It's about sparking debate. That is what I've done here, and the thread is getting a lot of response - so a job well done on my part, I believe.

 

If in your last entry here, you were trying to insinuate that I was in any way immature in my approach to shooting nudes, then you would be very much mistaken.

 

I doubt if you've even taken the time to look at any of my photographs...

[neesha_lin1]

I agree. Dave, your post did comeoff immature.

[davidnoblephotography]

Agree? Who with?

[zoewiseman]

I don't have a problem with anyone.

I do have a problem with the attitude towards the chosen genre of my work though. When

other photographers are saying these things about the nude in photography it makes me

wonder how the general public sees it. When these questions are posed it does nothing to

separate the genre from pornography. And it is exactly this attitude that gets

photographers in trouble with the law. Just look at Jock Sturges. There was nothing sexual

about his work, yet because of immaturity the FBI busts down his door and takes his

negatives. This same attitude is what keeps women covered in bags in the middle-east.

Women are MUCH MORE than sex, they should have the respect and opportunity with

photographs to be depicted as MORE.

[davidnoblephotography]

Thanks Zoe. Glad we're on good terms again. :) I'm not familiar with Jock Sturges... Do you know of any sites where we can take a look at his work?

[Norma Desmond]

jock sturges web site:

 

http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/photographers/jock_sturges_01.html

[davidnoblephotography]

Hmm... I took a glance at Jock Sturges's web-site, and quite frankly, I can see why yhe FBI were so interested in him.

 

Some people may view this sort of thing as art, but you have to admit - some of his models seem incredibly young.

 

What constitutes child porn? That's another thread.

 

Needless to say - I didn't enjoy his pictures, and left the site after only looking at about half a dozen images.

[Norma Desmond]

We live in a society that's afraid of itself.

 

The FBI would do well to be more interested in those who find Jock's photos disturbing

than in Jock himself. It is those offended viewers whose perspective on nudity and mental

meanderings about it I would question more than Jock's.

 

The only problem with Jock's nude models who seem incredibly young is in the eye of the

beholder who sees something beyond beauty and innocence. There are real child

pornographers to be concerned with and it's a shame that our damn politicians, FBI

agents, and some citizens can't tell the difference between them and Jock Sturges.

 

We are so busy throwing babies out with bathwater, whether it be with civil rights or

artistic ones, that, as a society, we have become incapable of making discerning

judgments about what to fear and what to be concerned with.

 

I'm sorry, Dave, but your "Nice Set of . . . Headphones" photo (with title) could be seen as

more exploitive than anything by Jock Sturges.

[tomtomtom]

The whole problem is the repressed founders of the country, fearful of the human body and rebelling against the excesses of the aristocracy, leaving England and setting up a culture that is STILL suffering from shame about the body, and the very repression of it has set up a culture of titillation and denial, such that even classic figures, sculptures showing a stone breast, for pete's sake, are being censored and covered up! That's just, well, silly and tragic at the same time. Imagine how shocking to them an aesthetic, simple nude photograph. Because the body is dirty, dirty, dirty -- right?

 

Think of the difference between topless beaches in Europe, and Americans going and leering at those same beaches. The human body just is, and documenting our humanity, what's beautiful, what's truthful, is the job of the artist. See John Coplans' A Body.

 

We are human. Humans find the aesthetics of humans fascinating. Perhaps if people saw the human body all the time, and weren't told it was wrong, yes, they could actually get past their animal brain, and see it as form and wonder and beauty.