The Concept Of Nude Photography

[petemillis]

I don't know what to make of Jock Sturges' work. While I don't see anything wrong or indecent or exploitative about the images themselves (after all , they're no different from paintings and sculptures of cherubs and water babies or whatever that people have enjoyed since time bagan), I am uncomfortable with the knowledge that there are some people (a very small minority of the population) who will view these in an inappropriate manner. These are, of course, the same people who will view kids in an inapproriate manner in whatever form they are presented to them - be it real life, or in pictures.

 

And then, of course, a very small minority of them will go on to commit an offence of one sort or another - be it an assault or moving on to child pornography or whatever. The problem is, for the most part, we don't know who these potential offenders are. So the law, in an attempt to be protective of children, says that there are to be no nude photographs of children displayed, and anyone who views them is a sex offender. Everyone is treated as guilty. And I must admit, if I went into some old bloke's house and he had pictures of naked young children adourning his walls, then I would probably also have the kneejerk reaction of assuming he was an old perv without giving a thought to whether he saw these images in a sexual light or not.

 

I have 4 kids of my own, and over the past few months I and my wife have become less trusting of the fellas around here. This is because we witnessed an old bloke sitting in his car in a public park where families were hanging out and kids playing. He had an ice lolly in one hand and was masturbating with the other while watching the kids playing. The view of fully clothed kids obviously gets him sexually aroused, so how are freely available images of naked children going to feed his desires? I takcled him at the time, had a go at him and sent him packing, but had gathered photographc evidence that enable the police to arrest him. He was interviewed by the police, he admitted what he was doing, and because of his admission and age (82 and apparently not previously known to the police) he was just given a caution and is now on the police's public protection unit database. No doubt because he was only interviewed and cautioned, and not charged, then I suspect no house search or DNA sampling would have taken place. I'm still not convinced that he has no "history" and every time I see him I get an urge to say something. This sort of thing makes me more suspicious and less trusting of everyone, and I can understand the difficulty of balancing child protection with public freedom.

 

Am I comfortable with Jock Sturges' images? Yes I am. But I'm not comfortable with how some people might view them.

Will banning this sort of image solve the problem? No, of course not.

 

It's impossible I think for the police to know who the perverts are. There will always be perverts in society, and they will remain unknown to the police unless there is evidence or an arrestable offence. By making publication and viewing of images of naked children an arrestable offence then it gives the police a tool to use whereby evidence will enable arrest to be made, and hence a greater number of perverts will come to the police's attention. But the most effective way for children to be protected is through parental responsibility and public awareness. People should watch out for each other instead of always turning a blind eye to something like a bloke watching kids or wanking in the park!

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

Freedom is really quite simple.

 

Because some people will use free speech to incite violence, we stop those particular

people from doing so. We don't take away others' free speech.

 

Because some use mail and telephone lines to commit crimes, we get warrants when we

have suspicions and tap their phones and intercept their mail. We don't listen in on

everyone. (Well, at least that's the way it used to and should work.)

 

Because some are offended by certain books that are in the library, they are allowed not to

read them or not even ever to enter a library. We don't burn the books.

 

Because some ("very small minority of the population")

will view pictures of nude children inappropriately does not mean that all of society should

be censored.

 

The story of your local sex offender, as you suggest, should make us all vigilant. Clearly,

we must be protective of our children. (Would that we would protect them from war and

poverty as well as we protect them from nudity and 4-letter words on tv.)

 

How your local sex offender might view Jock Sturges's photos should have ZERO to do

with public policy on Jock Sturges's right to take the photos he takes, publish them, and

for the vast majority of sane viewers to view them.

 

Freedom is not based on the least common denominator, certainly not on what criminal

minds will do with it.

[petemillis]

Fred, I agree and I wasn't condoning the banning of images such as Jock's. That wouldn't solve the problem - all that does, like a huge number of other laws, is to take away people's freedom. Like my example of my local sex offender, society needs to take on board a lot more responsibility when it comes to what's wrong and what's right. I still don't not what to do a bout my local man - there is a family with young kids next door to him, and a family with young kids directly over the road from him. My heart is telling me that they should know, but then if he gets done over it comes back directly on me! Still, that's another subject I guess.

[Norma Desmond]

Pete, thanks for the clarification.

[davidnoblephotography]

I guess it's all about personal opinion at the end of the day.

 

I don't think that we should start to criticize each other for our personal opinions.

[Norma Desmond]

Dave--

 

The FBI hunting down Jock Sturges and society's equation of that kind of photography with

child porn is very much public.

 

Taste is one thing and opinion is another. It's hard to criticize someone's taste. It's

necessary to criticize opinions (your bringing up child porn in relation to Jock's work) that

lead to actions and public policies I find abhorrent.

 

I wish more people would criticize the opinions that are leading to and bolstering current

American public policy. It would be a better country and a better world.

[chris_autio]

I am GWC, and I didn't start shooting nudes till having 10 years experience as a pro

photographer, and I wondered why I waited so long... On my first shoot in a huge room with

total studio lighting control, and with a pro dancer as subject matter... wow there seemed to

be no end to the possiblity. Bare in mind that I was shooting med format b/w. All this

experience blew my mind. Intense inspiring work. And I wasn't totally ALLURED to the

corporeal form as ART, because I have shot just as many male nudes. Of course the body is

alluring, and sexy, and artful. As far as the female form more appealing, I am for it, but my

intent in work isn't so often the subject matter but how it is framed.

[jtk]

Its odd that Sturges and Mapplethorpe are so intensely debated.

 

It seems obvious that they both dealt in beauty as well as work that was intended to arouse. Intention to arouse does define porn, I think.

 

The notion that Mapplethorpe's one (I've only seen the one in several exhibitions) nude child was not porn seems silly, especially given its crude execution compared to the rest of his work: I think that was a direct statement of his intent. I've never talked to anyone who claimed to be aroused by that child, but have talked to people aroused by his adult nudes. Me, I think all of his work was porn, including his flowers.

 

Does that detract? I don't think so...but by the same token I think his nudes are highly derivative decor, lacking the aesthetic merit of Sturges' nudes.

 

The sex debate has ruled out discussion of the worth of the work.

 

Sturges work is considered porn by some patrons. Where does that leave us?

 

Are the heterosexual men on this forum not turned on by Sturges' pre-teen girls? Are the gay men not turned on by Mapplethorpe's male nudes?

 

If not turned on, are we missing something? I think so.

[GerrySiegel]

"I completely understand the difference between a pornographic image and a fine art image, but I reckon that they are basically both there to instill the same feelings, but in different ways."

 

I wish I did,interstand the differences better,that is. As much as I enjoy looking at SOME nude studies(already introducing a buzz word,studies), I have never been able to define the category if you will. It does or cannot avoid seeming(underlined) to relate to the intent of sexual arousal having a higher priority(underlined) than the intent to present something of beauty as enhanced by both the photographer and the model and the background I dare add.

 

And a tangential thought: I am sure that say, Leonard Nimoy, per Zoe, approaches his craft with the same seriousness that he approached his film work. (Leonard ,I disclose, comes from the same "nice Jewish boy" neighborhood that I grew up in where nudity was something for the burlesque and a Judeo Catholic no-no/ stand in the corner Len, in the fifties).

 

I just read a thread on another forum where someone displayed an image under Lighting Techniques and the only responses were panting hormonal ones. He called it a sample of his Glamour Photography workshop. Pose I have seen a zillion times where the model,with no visible expression, deftly holds down the bikini just over the pudendum,you know the pose.... I guess where I am heading is that there are code words ( I think,not sure) like Glamour Photography, Tasteful Nudity,Boudoir Photography, Life Studies,or whatnot that get at intent. And I agree with Ellis in that getting to shoot a one on one nude shows an ability to defy what is still a taboo ( hide it quick,the boss is coming) subject. I wish it were less entwined with the arousal bit, because then one could manage to discuss the photographic (art if you please) qualities without the overlay of libidinal mish mash.

 

The gaffers that work on porno sets,I am told,begin to play cards and compare baseball players very soon,as part of their job.

 

I haven't figured it out at all,but even the parsing the subject categories (and there seem to be quite a few) of the nude-the most basic of forms and yet most mysterious,the body and its structure- seems to be also the most "controversial."

[Norma Desmond]

John K.--

 

A good direction for the discussion to head.

 

"If not turned on, are we missing something? I think so"

 

Seems like an element, yes, but I think it goes deeper. Most straight men won't be turned

on (sexually) by Mapplethorpe's nudes and I as a gay man am not turned on by Sturges's.

But I don't think each group necessarily misses something, any moreso than we all miss

things in all photographs all the time because of culture, bias, taught rules, etc. I, like you,

respond more deeply and powerfully to Sturges than to Mapplethorpe.

 

Photographers as conscious as Sturges and Mapplethorpe know that they are playing with

taboo as well as internal sexual responses as well as culturally challenging subject

matter. It's hard to separate out what each of us is responding to when there is so much of

significance at play.

 

I guarantee there are straight men who are completely repulsed by Sturges's nudes and

there are gay men who find nothing titillating about Mapplethorpe's nudes. I believe they

are capable of "getting" as much of what each photographer has to offer as all the others.

Revulsion, questioning, and discomfort, I believe, are parts of the message.

 

Those who are turned on may miss as much as those who are not turned on.

[GerrySiegel]

Chris Autio wrote:

 

"Bare (sic) in mind that I was shooting med format b/w. All this experience blew my mind. Intense inspiring work."

 

Bear with me if I find a Freudian language tic in your comment,Chris,,with due respect to the probing intensity of the thread. I.e. Mapplethorpe and Sturges and maybe law and moral policemen if it heads there.

 

aloha,gs, (GWTMC.)guy with too many cameras:-).

[jgalyon]

Zoe...thanks for responding, and i understand that smirk that must have been on your face during your initial response. know that i was smirking a bit as i wrote as well. the attitudes/ intentions of most truly professional photographers is i'm sure, quite different than the average guy thumbing through nude photos on this site. i've never shot nudes, but i believe that i would be so involved and concerned that i'd fail to produce decent photographs that the "sexuality" part would hardly be on my mind - that is to say, any personal arousal, etc.

 

i could blather on, but let's just say that i agreed with everything you said, now that the "tongue-in-cheek" portion of your comments was clarified!

 

and you are most welcome...as an admirer of your work i feel honored to be speaking with you!

[jtk]

Fred, we are as usual in agreement on fundamentals.

 

However we both know what lies behind confident denial that one is turned on at some level, in some way, by sensual photographs, irrespective their orientation.

 

Zoe, above, made the standard unnecessary case for Sturges, but to say he wasn't playing with eros dismisses essential aspects of his images, the way he restrained and toyed with sexual tension in particular. As well, there's the matter of the responses of his targeted collectors.

 

Think back to painters of "odalesques." These, along with many earlier

artists were intentionally created to be sexually provocative. Back-of-bar nudes and Michelangelo's David for example.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

Agree there is a lot of denial. Also believe a lot of men are genuinely not turned on either

by Sturges's or by Mapplethorpe's images.

 

This thread has wavered between the photographer's intention and the viewer's

response.

 

I think Mapplethorpe shows a more clear sexual provocation than does

Sturges. I am less sure that Sturges did at all,

even though I assume he well knew the deck he was playing with.

 

The interesting part for me, as viewer and as photographer, is whether one has to

experience the intended sensation in

order to understand and "get" the photo. And the flip side: Could Jock have conveyed

titillation if he didn't feel it? Can I convey it with a female nude as a gay man?

 

Maybe I should start a new thread. As viewer, can I be

unmoved by a photo that appears to be trying to move me and still "get" it, maybe even

"get" it more because I'm not feeling it? As picture-maker, can I elicit feelings that I don't

myself have?

[jtk]

I think it's easy to manipulate feelings of others and that it's desirable to be able to empathize with the feelings of others.

 

To "get" a photo doesn't necessarily mean to get it in its entirety.

 

Sturges and Mapplethorpe both produced handsome prints (or someone did). Some folks can evidently look at them and enjoy that aspect without even being aware that something else is tugging at them. So to speak.

 

I think it's a given that people who go to the trouble to deny feelings are especially likely to be prone to them (note denials above).

 

Similarly, properly exposing (so to speak) nude females with perfect-for-the-era bodies and depicting them as mere sculptural objects (see example far above) is especially deserving of unkind razzing (the best kind). But for those damned staples, Hugh Hefner was an art publisher, following that line of thinking.

[Norma Desmond]

"To 'get' a photo doesn't necessarily mean to get it in its entirety."

 

Duh!! (To use the young uns' vernacular).

 

". . . nude females with perfect-for-the-era bodies and . . . as mere sculptural objects . . . "

 

Not sure what that has to do with the price of beans. But I promise, when I do a female nude

it won't make it into the body beautiful TRP or Playboy.

[petemillis]

Fred said "The interesting part for me, as viewer and as photographer, is whether one has to experience the intended sensation in order to understand and "get" the photo. And the flip side: Could Jock have conveyed titillation if he didn't feel it? Can I convey it with a female nude as a gay man? "

 

Fred, I think it is possible to understand and get the photo without experiencing the intended sensation - assuming the intended sensation is arousal or titillation of some sort or another. I can look at a photo of a nude male without feeling aroused or titillated, while being fully aware of how that photo would produce the sensations in someone else - either a female or a male. The same is also tru of photos of nude women - there are plenty of nude female photos that don't arouse me at all but I can see how others would find them sexy. Then there are some that do arouse me that I'm sure wouldn't arouse others. And I think the same is also true of the flipside - I'm sure that even as a straight man I could photograph a male nude that would arouse some gay men and some women, even if didn't experience that myself.

 

I think it goes much deeper than gay men being aroused by male nudes, straight men being aroused by female nudes, gay females being aroused by female nudes and straight females being aroused by male nudes. We all find different facial features arousing, some of us are turned off by things like fake tans, bangly earings, high heels, heaps of make up and so on. Whereas others find these things a turn on. Different facial features occur in different cultures - I like features of people like Bjork, Franke Potente, and others :) I like the possible quirky/alternative personalities that come through, and find them far more of a turn on than the likes of typical objects of sexual desire like Paris Hilton, Jordan, Pamela Anderson, and a majority of the nude females that appear here on PN.

 

And then of course there is this "connection" between subject and viewer that has been discussed in the recent "qualities of a portrait" thread. If I look at a female nude with a face that shows the sort of features, and an expression that shows the sort of personality, that appeals to me, then it's going to do a lot more for me than a nude that doesn't have the same appeal. And it is quite likely that I might look at a male nude and see something of myself in the features or personality coming through that could make me feel like I am, or could be, that person - and that would then have an effect of arousal. I'm not sure if that makes sense - what I'm trying to say is that if a picture of a male nude could make me imagine that I am that person in that picture then it would do something - you know, if I imagined it was me there turning on people.

 

Hmmm, interesting topic.

 

Pete

[jtk]

Pete...you've opened another interesting avenue...empathy.

 

One potentially contentious issue is membership in gender identity group, as opposed to actual biological response (which IMO is always bisexual but repressed and practiced in one way or another).

 

It's important for some frightened individuals to demamd that they're gay or straight, to insist that they don't respond to hetero or homo imagery. We see typical examples in several instances on this thread. I'm like that myself, to a degree, as a heterosexual man. I think most of us are, especially those that protest the loudest. I won't mention any religious or political figures here.

 

Some identity groups insist that their members practice exclusivity in order to deepen identity...gay women confining their relationships to gay women for example, or extremes of macho male Marine Corps types that are unaware those extremes are also a type of gay identity.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

You'll be interested to know that even the CDC, slow-moving government bureacracy that

it is, is not using the word "gay" anymore in its safe-sex and AIDS awareness literature.

The new moniker is "MSM" (men who sleep with men).

 

Younger men who sleep with men often also sleep with women and don't want to be

labeled and are pretty forthright about acknowledging and accepting the unrestricted

sexual habits of

both themselves and others.

 

By the way, lesbians have probably given more in terms of money and emotional and

practical support (and by that

I mean often getting their hands dirty) to gay men during the AIDS crisis than any other

identity group. They are also active on and well integrated into public school boards and

councils throughout the

Bay Area. They're not as confined as you might think. But then again, I doubt the Marine

Corps is as gay as you think either. I may try to do some research on that. I'll keep you

posted. :)

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

Thanks for expanding on the theme of intentions, responses, and understanding of

photos. I can relate to a lot of what you've said. It might be interesting to start another

thread along those lines.

 

John--

 

One man's "empathy" is another's grasp of signifiers. By that, I mean I don't see it much as

empathy. I think of it as understanding and responding to someone's

photographic language.

[jtk]

Fred, I think the "theys" you mention are specific identity groups, social clubs like canasta players or Young Republicans, not representative of the larger populations for which they claim to be leading edge.

 

I don't think the identity groups you've mentioned are inherently confined, I know they work to confine themselves. When they self-identify as an identity group (eg sex, race) they contribute less than their peers who doesn't do so, irrespective their actual race and sex/proclivities. They are atavistic politically, while binding their members to them.

 

San Francisco's politics have moved to the Right specifically as a result of opportunistic identity group politics, notably for mere "liberals" the literal racism of sexual identity groups.

 

I've been around these issues for all of my adult life (San Francisco

resident, School Superintendent's appointee to recreate/save School of Arts, Castro District and older Polk Street friends, illness and deaths of friends / co-workers , awareness of AIDS issues from before the beginning (lived two blocks from UC Hospital), interest in the biology of phermone-caused-sex change in animals such as birds, fish, and antelope (! Blackbuck in Texas) and supporting theories by gay/lesbian identity groups . Sexuality is an interesting topic irrespective one's tendencies.

 

I didn't even hint that I thought the Marine Corps was significantly gay: the only Jar Heads I know are Navajo. But thanks to the Village People, all America knows military signifiers are important to some gay populations :-)

 

Surely someone here can say something photographic here :-)

[jtk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDNApbunA8

[Norma Desmond]

"I didn't even hint that I thought the Marine Corps was significantly gay"

 

"extremes of macho male Marine Corps types that are unaware those extremes are also a

type of gay identity."

 

I know you didn't mean that guys in the Marine Corps are giving each other blow jobs

(although more are than many would think), and you meant to analogize on the level of

gay identity and macho brotherhood. I thought I was clearly being tongue-in-cheek (no

pun intended) in

my response. Surely you did suggest a comparability between macho Marine types and gay

identity and a relationship between the two. You did, in fact, suggest a significant element

of what it is to be gay present in the macho side of the Marine Corps. Unless you are just

laying traps?

[petemillis]

http://www.stevenzeeland.com/zeeland/marines/mar-eric-01.htm

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

Thanks for the article. Moving reading. It reminds me what a real world I've lived in and

grown up in. My mom used to play mah jong (her friends had canasta games). I know the

difference between that club and mine and so did she, dear woman!