The Concept Of Nude Photography

[jtk]

Fred, no traps. "Identity" and facts of life are rarely the same. "Identity" is a labeled concept, not a physical reality. "Signifier," a word you introduced here, is as you know a sign, not a the factoid that it attempts to identify. You signify yourself "gay." I think of you as "Fred."

[petemillis]

Fred, I found it good reading too and it helped me understand things I hadn't really considered before. And I think this is maybe where the concept of nude photography can play an important role. This thread concerning nude photography has opened up channels of thought and discussion relating to subjects that people are often uncomfortable with. Now, there was a programme on TV here the other day called "My penis and everybody else's" - it was a documentary initiated by this fella who was insecure about the lack of size of his manhood. He had never spoken to anyone about it but it is something he had always been bothered with - at 3.5inches standing. Anway, the gist of the programme was that blokes never discussed their concerns wit ohther blokes. It was only when he came up with the idea for an exhibition of photographs of penises and decided it should consist of photos sent in by people, and the encouraged people to see the exhibition, that blokes really started opening up and talking and feeling more comfortable with looking at male members. The whole photograph thing really gave blokes a better awareness of other blokes' bodies and made them realise that we can discuss this sort of thing without it somehow reflecting our sexuality. Maybe women have been more open about discussing themselves with each other as historically there has been a more abundant exposure of the female body - in art, in film, on TV, in fashion and porn magazines and in papers etc. I think the biggest problem is that straight blokes are too prudish when it comes to talking about themselves, and many have been scared to even look at male nudes in case it somehow implies they must be gay or might turn them gay. Surely this ain't necessarilly so - my wife can look at naked women without feeling that it must mean she's a lesbian!

[Norma Desmond]

Not wanting to romanticize, but when you grow up in a closet, when your life has been

threatened because of certain

unharmful behaviors you enjoy, when your government won't allow you to do what others

do, your identity is very much a fact of life. The fact that you think of me as "Fred" is

fantabulous. It's also a fact that others don't. These facts combined set in motion a chain

of realities

that lead to identity creation, both from within and without. Some level of personal

identity is inescapable. "Fred" is every bit as much a label and signifier as "gay" is. Your

knowledge of and acquaintance with people is through all kinds of signifiers, signs,

symbols, what have you. They come from the person himself and they are imposed on all

of us by others. The "self" you think you're thinking of when you think of "Fred" is no

more a fact and no less a series of signifiers than "the tall gay guy who takes pictures

down the street." What, you think there's a real me in here somewhere?

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

I think you're right, that that's one of the great things about photography and the

discussions that it yields, especially when images are in some way uncomfortable to view

or jarring in their effect. That's why simply dismissing a Sturges as pornography or not

being willing to give more than a glance at half a dozen of his photos is acceptable to so

many. It's why the nudes section is so filled with the objectified, distanced, and

stereotyped images that John already pointed to. It's why the very thought of sexualizing

an "art" nude ruffles some feathers. I think photography has a directness that can be very

disconcerting sometimes. That's probably also its glory.

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

Obviously my response directly below your last entry is to John. I was writing while you were.

[petemillis]

John said "You signify yourself "gay." I think of you as "Fred.""

 

John, I just think og you as "John" as I don't have an other information to put together in my mind. You could be "Gay John", "Straight John", "Black John", "White John", "Short John", "Tall John", "Brown Eyed John", "Blue Eyed John" or whatever. If you were to say you were straight, tall, blue eyed, white, then that is how I would see you - I would have the impression of you as "Straight, Tall, Blue Eyed, White John" and that would help me know that you were you rather than someone else called John. Now where is the harm in acknowledging in my mind that Fred is "Gay Fred"? It doesn't mean that I'd either negatively or positively discriminate against or for him, but it would give me a better understanding of Fred. It's a part of what makes Fred who he is. The difficulty with sexuality is that it is an "invisible" difference between people. We're not all the same - things like features, skin colour, gender, eye colour, disability and so on are all there for everyone to see and they help us understand each other. If sexuality is ignored then it takes away an important piece of information that builds understanding and identity.

 

Now here's a thought for nude photography - without resorting to some inane crude symbolism (maybe a sailor hat on a male nude or a woman shaving her face like KD Lang on the Vanity Fair cover) we don't know anything about the sexuality of the subject unless it is fed to us in words or is implicitly given through the type of publication in which it appears. We know the subject's skin colour, possibly whether they have disabilities or not, their sex (with exceptions of course), eye colour, hair colour, we see their expression - and we think we can somehow connect with them, or are expected to be turned on by them or titillated by them - but all we see is an image. We don't know the subject's sexuality as it's something that is invisible. The image of what we desire could well be a complete lie. Maybe that's why I don't feel particularly aroused by the typical images of female nudes that appear here on PN and in exhibitions - I don't know them. I need to talk to them, to hold hands with them, to understand them. And I don't know if anyone has ever paid much attention to this - model shoots that appear in porn mags are always accompanied by a few sentences about the model (complete bullshit I suspect) that somehow makes the view feel they know the model a bit. They can then feel some connection, which is no doubt what draws them again and again to purchase such "literature". The nude pictures are there but there is no connection without the words.

[petemillis]

Fred, I was writing my latest bit while you were writing yours!

 

Speaking of sexualising art, that Biron fella talks about the "Erotic Portrait" - a quote from his site http://www.photos-biron.com/words/erotic3.htm , which I hope will be left here as I have referenced it

 

"What is an Erotic-Portrait?

Answer: A photograph that has the qualities of a good portrait (lighting, composition, individual personality, etc.) which, in addition, happens to be sensual or erotic depending on one's sexual appetites. This added ingredient, either suggested or overt, would, when successful, be considered in a more positive sexual atmosphere as enhancing rather than detracting from the photograph's essential qualities. Yet we still expect the artist who uses pornography to seek justification elsewhere with claims that the work as a whole has redeeming social value.

 

I would argue instead that pornography can be a valid element of a work. And those who deem everything they consider to be artistic as not pornographic, simply deny the meaning of the term. For example, I've been told that each of the photographs on this page is definitely not pornographic by people who liked them but could not come to terms with the dreadful word. In short, pornography is a fact, not a moral judgment, and should be subjected to the same aesthetic criteria as any other form of creative/artistic expression."

 

 

ALSO, for anyone who is interested, the programme I referred to - "My penis and everyone else's" - in my earlier post was accompanied with a web site - http://mypenisandeveryoneelses.com/index.php?id=5 with a sub-site http://www.snapyourchap.com/ for people to send in images. Quite good fun and interesting to look at -there's nothing pervy or weird about it.

[jtk]

I consider it demeaning to evaluate or identify a person by his "signifiers" if you know his name.

 

If a man wants to tell me he's black, it's OK with me. I'd have figured that out for myself eventually, but my humanity, as developed with the help of my family, culture, and goals allows us both the privilege of identifying him by his name, no matter what additional signifiers he may attach.

 

I'm personally too high a form to have thought of Fred as "gay Fred" before Fred. He knows that I respond that way.

 

That's not arrogance(and I expect it of others). It's confidence based upon personal experience with myself and it's consistent with the goals and values that my family, friends, and I have established. It's a fundamental moral issue.

 

That Fred has had grief as a result of gay identity does not affect my definition of the man. If he insisted on being "gay Fred" (and he didn't) I'd sympathize, but I'd consider the extra signifier a dehumanizing distortion, like saying "Jew Fred" or "fat Fred."

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

I appreciate all that you've said. Clearly you mean what you say out of respect and that's

more important than any philosophical approaches to identity we may continue to discuss.

 

I don't want you to think of me as gay first. But I do want you to appreciate that it is a part

of me just like all the other parts.

 

What I'm getting at is that all you have of me,

whether I'm your brother or your internet mate, are signifiers that add up to my identity

(which is a string of signifiers, not some fact or reality), one of which is "gay." That you

have been an SF resident, a school board appointee, a friend to Polk and Castro folks, a

photographer, a guy with a significant other, etc. etc. are no more or less important than

that you are

heterosexual. All I have of you and, frankly, all you have of yourself, are these things

(signifiers/attributes/qualities/experiences, what have you) that make up your identity.

Identities or parts of identity groups are basically ALL we are.

 

I agree that it would be rude or

boorish to refer to me as "the gay guy" instead of "Fred." But that's convention. What I'm

saying is that what "Fred" actually refers to is not something real or mysterious inside this

6'4"

male body. "Fred" refers to "the tall, Jewish, gay, 53-year-old guy originally from NY, and

on

and on. "Fred" just substitutes conventionally for all the other "names" you could call me.

There's nothing else there, I'm afraid. The way I see it, we are our descriptions.

 

I'm questioning your assertion that "identity groups and facts

of life are rarely the same." The grief I've had as a result of my gay identity

(or my homosexual activities, if you want to leave the word identity out) should, of course,

affect your definition of me, the way you see and relate to me, and who you consider me

to be. The same way that my father's service in World War II, which set in motion the onset

of his multiple sclerosis, (the valiant way he's dealt

with his illness, the lessons he's taught his children about survival, the things he saw in

Europe and passed on to me and to others) are all inseparable from who he his. If you take

away all the descriptions, what exactly would be left?

 

Okay, enough.

[zoewiseman]

I am so sorry I brought up Sturges. It is a shame that people still refer to his work in this

way and compare it to something really sinister. It repulses me.

 

I wish I had a photographer around me when I was young so that my body and my life

were documented the way Jock's subjects are. He has known these families for decades.

And the children he shot who are mother's and father's now have also posed with their

children. He shoots family portraits, not photographs of underage children. These

portraits just so happen to be nude. And big God damn deal! The FBI was hounding him

over photographs he took in France of French families on "nude" beaches (just a "beach" in

France). And I notice that no mention of "young boys" was brought up, just about the girls

he photographed. *eye roll* What about the children with their parents? Didn't anyone

notice those? His photography is very innocent. And I agree that the people who are

uncomfortable with it are the people who we should concern ourselves with, not Jock.

 

People like to talk and talk about something they know nothing about all the time.

Frustrating.

 

I was gone for 4 days and came back and tried reading all of this. Someone mentioned

Nimoy and then refered to Burlesque and snickering... why? Is nudity really that funny?

Last time I checked I wasn't in a Benny Hill skit and I wasn't the underling of Gypsy Rose

Lee. I don't have a gimick.

[zoewiseman]

http://weeklywire.com/ww/04-20-98/boston_feature_1.html

 

 

read this

[petemillis]

Zoe, you shouldn't be sorry for bringing up Jock's work - by talking about it an questioning it then that's how people learn what it's all about.

[jtk]

Fred: "If you take away all the descriptions, what exactly would be left?"

 

Answer: The certainty that the person in question is an individual. Not to be too sappy, but the matter of "inalienable rights" relates.

 

Zoe: "It repulses me."

 

Repulsion is the most shallow possible response to questions, and the easiest way to avoid thought.

 

Twenty-plus years ago, when Sturges was first troubled by the law (perhaps the Sheriff's dept in response to complaints) in his sophisticated and very affluent Marin County community, most did defend his right to produce what most recognized as erotic images, and some avowedly did buy his work for erotic reasons.

 

His gallery used press releases that played with eros (hypocritically chiding people who saw eros in nudes of young girls, in a more subtle way than you do). I recall well-informed reviews of his exhibition in San Francisco Chronicle discussing the tempest-in-teapot. I recall the prints themselves... far more maturely erotic than most photographic nudes one sees on P.N, including your examples, and far more erotic than what we see in his books.

 

Discussion of Sturges and Mapplethorpe seems especially appropriate here, and it's great that someone is "repulsed."

 

We're not in Kansas any more.

 

http://www.bernarduccimeisel.com/artistBio.php?id_artist=22

[Norma Desmond]

Good, back to Sturges and Mapplethorpe.

[petemillis]

John

"Fred: "If you take away all the descriptions, what exactly would be left?"

 

Answer: The certainty that the person in question is an individual. Not to be too sappy, but the matter of "inalienable rights" relates."

 

John, this is a weird thing, but you build in impresion of someone in your head, get an idea of who they are from what you know about them. Are you saying that it's not possible to treat that person as an individual and to respect their inalienable rights unless you somehow wipe all knowledge of what makes them who they are from your mind? Do you know lots of people called Fred and are you able to distinguish between them in your mind purely by name without going through the process of short fat white American Fred with the loud voice, tall skinny French speaking African Fred with the limp, ginger haired Fred with freckles and glasses.....? If I also knew all these Freds and you were talking about one of them, how would you relate to me which one you were talking about? Or would it not be possible because of their inalienable rights?

[nicolerenee]

I've just read through this entire thread...whew, Im tired.

 

Firstly, I find the human body (in all its glory) appealing whether its male or female. In fact, I am more appreciative of the female body in general. I find the curves and hollows, the fine textures and lines of a womans body more appealing to draw, to consider, and even to look at in a nude photograph in most cases. However, I do not find myself sexually attracted to the female figure. I must admit that a nude photo must be very well taken and celebrate its subject for me to enjoy it on any level. A good one to note is Fred's recent submission of an older gentlemen nude. He isnt a macho man buffed up and lit to dispaly all his muscle-bound glory, but there is no denying his inherant manhood and there is a tenderness about the photo that draws the viewer into it with a kind of vulnerability. Nudity can serve as a vessel to enhance the mood or intent of the photographer. A photo of an older lady (or gentlemen), with all her physical *imperfections*, can be just as beautiful in its way as a perfectly primed and in the bloom of youth hard bodied model.

 

We cannot control what viewers choose to do with a nude photo, but I think it is our responsibility to take the photo in such a way that it illicits the response we intend (if that makes any sense)

 

I also had a look at the link for Sturges images and find it important to note for those who didnt read it, that this man photographed in comunities where nudity is considered the *norm*

Aside from that, the photographs I looked at seemed to run the gamut. There were very tender shots of families, innocent ones, statuesque nudes on beaches, and even (lets face it and not try to call it something its not) sensual shots of young ladies facing puberty. While the photos are stunning, the only ones that may have affected my ingrained puritanical sensibilities are the ones of the pre-pubescent girls and boys. (Many less boys than girls on that site and all in the background from what I noticed)

 

Now, do I let culturally ingrained sensibilites rule my decisions about those particular photos? No. I consider the setting (the community *norm*) and also the feeling of the photo. There were no, what I would call, pornographic, shots but there were certainly ones taken in a way that called attention to the fact that these young ladies were headed to the begining of their sexual awakening. I dont believe they were handled in a crass or degrading way but more to draw attention to the beauty of a body and soul that was begining a transformation into womanhood. Something like a budding flower. Would some use them for less than honorable purposes? Im sure they would. But that is an issue with the individual and not the photograph.

 

As far as signifiers are concerned, is it possible to know someone merely by their conversation and conveyed beliefs and appreciate their character without knowing any of their physical qualities or history? Isnt there something *quintessential* that has nothing to do with hair, eyes, or sexual preference? I believe its called the soul?

[nicolerenee]

Zoe:

 

I agree with you about O'Keefe.

[Norma Desmond]

How 'bout this.

 

Some people are aroused when looking at "art" nudes. Some aren't. Some photographers

use their own sexual feelings/arousals to their advantage in creating nude images,

instilling their images with vital energy. Some use them to disadvantage, thereby creating

nudes that objectify and do nothing more than titillate. Some have these feelings and don't

use them in their photos, preferring to set them aside. Some don't have these feelings and

that's as far as it goes. Some don't have these feelings and nevertheless are able to instill

such feeling into their work. Some have no intention of instilling such feeling into their

work but have no control over thee viewer who will react as he or she wants.

 

There are probably a few more variations on the theme but you get the point.

 

Sexual energy and creativity, for some, are almost inextricably linked. Nothing wrong with

that. On the other hand, keeping any thought of sex out of a photo shoot . . . nothing

wrong with that. There are many nudes out there and many photos, all suggesting very

different motivations on the part of the photographer and eliciting very different reactions

from the viewer.

 

Such is the way to skin a cat.

[nicolerenee]

Point taken :)

[Norma Desmond]

Nicole--

 

Sorry, I was writing while you were writing. Thanks for the mention of my nude.

 

As for signifiers, you are right and I wasn't saying differently. Your experiences and

beliefs, more than your hair color and sexual orientation will tell me about you. But I can't

deny that many of my beliefs and many of my experiences are based on various of my

identities. Because I am Jewish, I have had certain experiences which inform my beliefs, my

later experiences, and who you will naturally perceive me to be. Because I'm gay, I've had

certain experiences which do the same. Because I am a college graduate, etc. etc.

 

Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum. Take the same belief in a few different people. Example: "I

believe two men or two women should not be allowed to marry." One is a 21-year old

fundamentalist

Christian born in Alabama who has never travelled outside her town. One is an urban

businessman with lots of gay friends. One is a married politician who accidentally drops

his toilet paper on the floors of public bathrooms. I am going to respond to each person's

belief very

differently based on their experience, background, power over me, and lots of other

things. While I may find it an objectionable belief in all three, there will be a lot of different

feelings brought up by each situation.

 

I have a friend who's a redhead and he firmly believes, and I think he's right, that redheads

are looked upon in many instances very differently than non-redheads. Physical attributes,

backgrounds, all go into the mix. No one is just a product of the present moment.

[Norma Desmond]

Nicole, just wanted you to be sure that my post above, which you responded to by saying

"point taken," was written while you were writing your thoughts, so I hadn't yet read them. I

was talking more to those who had already submitted comments. Your own comments on the

matter seem completely reasonable and refined to me, as usual!

[petemillis]

I'm being Devil's Advocate here - trying to gain a better understanding of things.....so Zoe, please don't take my words as dirtyfying innocent images of naked people - that genuinely isn't the intention.

 

I notice that the person who interviewed Sturges for the Weekly Wire is David Steinberg, editor of both Erotic By Nature and The Erotic Impulse. The fact that he is interested in Sturges' work seems to reaffirm that there is some property of his work that appeals to those interested in the erotic nature of his images, even if Sturges denies there is any erotic intentions.

 

The article linked to by Zoe is well worth reading. And some bits of it really are food for thought - like the way he befriends the families and gains the confidence of parents and children prior to photographing them. His modus operandi is exactly the same as that employed by people who love children so much that they want to befriend them and their families so they can groom them so they become confident to have "special cuddles" - the main difference being Sturges' goal is to capture innocent photographs of naked families, and the paedophile's goal is sexual gratification with young children.

 

But while Sturges is seemingly acting in all innocence to capture images of human beauty, innocence and growing up, and believes that if he can "make pictures of children that are so real, as you follow the children growing up over the years, perhaps there will be something cautionary in that visual example" (i.e. it may make people - paedophiles - realise that these children are real people), I can't help feeling that this type of imagery could have the opposite effect. Are there people who, for whatever reason, won't see the "something cautionary", but instead will be encouraged in their perverse desires. Is Sturges' discussion of the way he believes his work may be cautionary more a justification and defence of images he has taken, or has he taken the images to produce the cautionary tale? If Sturges has taken the images in all innocence to show purely innocent subjects, and he genuinely doesn't feel the images are erotic or arousing in any way, shape or form, then why does he feel a need to justify them any further than stating that they are beautiful images of the human form or whatever. Surely they could exist for that purpose alone - just to be beautiful images of ourselves - without further justification. It's Sturges himself who acknowledges that there is no doubt that some (I suspect more than a few) people will buy his works and have impure thoughts. He acknowledges that he "can't really do anything about those people, except hope that, if they attend to my work closely enough, they'll ultimately come to realize that these are real people." But what chance of that? Really....

 

I'm sure the vast majority of us can quite happily enjoy images like these for what they are - images captured of the human form through various stages of growing up that all of us go through, so they are a good reflection of ourselves, the part of ourselves that unfortunately is always hidden and rarely discussed. But despite Sturges' best efforts to do the right thing, is there a chance that perhaps his younger subjects, whose confidence he gained sufficiently to photograph and publish nude pictures of them at a time in their life when they would have little power to object or little consideration for how they would feel later in life, may come to feel they had been exploited for one man's personal gain. Will some come to a stage when they realise that their images as children were being seen as sexually erotic by people with an unhealthy interest? What if they begin to think that these images are encouraging repulsive behaviour? Could these images somehow make the subjects feel violated in a similar way to sexual abuse?

 

Like I said, I'm not putting down the work of Sturges or implying that there is anything wrong with it or denying that it's all wrong the way we are so ashamed of ourselves to the point that everything goes tits up. I am genuinely interested in discussing this and getting to know more about other people's opinions.

 

Thanks.

 

Pete

 

 

[nicolerenee]

Fred,

I agree absolutley that our circumstances and experiences influence and inform our beliefs. But isnt there something behind that that moves us in one way or another? What I mean by that is, say there are two women. Same creed, color, background, family circumstances, sexual preferance, life experiences etc... yet one finds the courage to climb out of the mire and become a sucessfull *whatever* and the other becomes a depressed, alchoholic divorcee who neglects her children.

 

Isnt there something inside us that decides how we deal with those circumstances and what we believe about them? Something that isnt based on where we were born or what cultural preferances we were raised with? Something that is mine and mine alone, no matter how many similarities I share with anyone else? I think there is.

 

I am more than the sum of all my parts.

[nicolerenee]

Pete,

 

I think you have a valid point which raises another question. Does a woman stop wearing revealing clothing because it causes a married man to lust after her? Is she responsible for his perversions, thoughts or actions? Where does the responsibility lie? (just an example)

 

Also, is it possible that photographs in general and not JUST nude ones, whether of children or not, can result in people feeling exploited at a vulnerable time? Will the family of a dead girl feel exploited that the newspaper printed photographs of her body and the grieving mother just to sell more news papers?

[gordonjb]

What a fascinating thread this has become. I have always been astonished at the amount of controversy Sturges work generates. It seems to me that one look should make it obvious that this is art not pornography. I cannot fathom that pornographers would put this level of attention to composition and creativity into there product. Sturges work screams art in capital letters. I really do think all of this can be taken too far. As children my sister and myself were photographed in the nude by my parents all the time. In the bath in the wading pool in the yard etc. and no one gave it a second thought.I think as a society we have developed an unhealthy obsession with the evil aspects of humanity.I'm not denying that there are pedophiles out in the world that our children need to be protected from but the spirit of the day seems to be , if in doubt by all means go off the deep end. I feel this attitude ends up denying the other end of the scale were honest innocent images can be appreciated as the fine art that they are.To use my previous example if someone got hold of my fathers old home movies and got aroused by images of my sister and myself as children in the bath it would not make my dad a pornographer. Likewise I do not see how you can hold Sturges responsible for what goes on in other peoples minds.

Fred's sexual orientation, religion, country of birth, childhood experiences etc. all make Fred, Fred. I do not know how anyone supposes to separate the person from the elements that go into that persons constitution. Personally I'm not a big fan of nudes but I do prefer female nudes. I tell myself this is because the male body has less pleasing curves and too many abrupt changes of angle. Being heterosexual, I do not know for certain if this is a conscious rationalization of something going on at a deeper level. Perhaps I like the female form in art because I prefer females sexually. A fine art image is a fine art image irregardless of the gender or age of the subjects or the sexual orientation of the viewer.