What's so cool about nudes?

[Norma Desmond]

"most of" should be "mostly"

[petemillis]

Ilia "Speaking theologicaly, it is not a sin to be lead into temptation but the presedence of sin that leads to temptation. This is also applicable to creative photography. "

 

Thanks Ilia for the explanation - that's helpful. :)

 

John Kelly "It's extremely unusual, nearly to the point of "never," for a photographer to shoot nudes of young men or women without intending to tease themselves or clients. Arousal is the specific reason their subjects are young."

 

John, how about explicit nudes of 5 year old children? Very young subjects.

 

Fred "John brings up a great point about "serious" artists legitimizing their work by denying sexuality when it comes to nudes. It's done over and over again and is most of hogwash."

 

Fred, would you say this is the case with that much talked about Nan Goldin picture - explicit nude of 5 year old girl - legitimised by the "serious artist" denying sexuality and others pointing out that anyone who finds it perhaps inappropriate or offensive or wrong are the ones who have a problem?

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

I was considering only adults here.

 

Photographs of naked children would encompass a different set of considerations. Some

might overlap with adults and others wouldn't.

 

Can you provide a quote and its context where Goldin attempted to legitimize her photo

by denying sexuality?

[sprouty]

Come on Pete, let it go...

[jtk]

"Nan-Golden-isn't-a-child-abuser" has been beaten to death on three recent threads. It's a ridiculous and tiresome argument specifically for child porn.

 

Some think it's OK to exploit of young, ordinarily clothed children, by photographing them nude (calling this "cute"). That's called "depravity."

 

Pete, If you can produce anyone under 18 (the legal age) who can address this topic coherently I'll give that person and his/her parents as much respect as I'd give Paris Hilton.

 

I imagine you would too?

[sprouty]

http://www.abc.net.au/myfavouritealbum/albumart/nevermind.htm

 

I'm not wading into the the whole Nan Goldin image thing again, but it would be hard to argue that the image linked above isn't well accepted in society.

[petemillis]

Fred, I made an assumption (possibly incorrectly) that by publishing this image as a depiction of innocence then "sexuality" was implicitly denied. I'm pretty certain that if the image was blatantly published as a depiction of sexuality then there would be a greater swing against the "artistic legitimacy" or whatever of the image. I'm probably waffling now - my own opinions on this are pretty firm in my mind so perhaps I should heed SP's advice and "let it go" before I end up with a total mental stress out!

 

SP, the Nirvana, Nevermind album cover - seems to be like a different kettle of fish from the entire composition and subject matter point of view. Spencer Elden was just photographed doing what millions of babies do - swim naked - and it was done in an innocent kind of way. With the Goldin picture, though, the depiction is clearly different and Goldin clearly chose to compose the picture in a fashion to maximise its controversiality (made up word).

 

Anyway, I'm letting it go.....

[nhut-nguyen]

Is Nude Photography Art or Porn?

 

I don't know the exact word or the exact situation..but this issue has been to court and the judge's conclusion was this "I KNOW IT, WHEN I SEE IT."

 

I can tottaly differentiate between ART and PORN when I look at a photograph, I hope you can too, cheer. :)

[bluphoto]

Going back to your original posting...

 

Am I missing something? Not really, when you say that SOME of these images seem like infatuations, or pornography - you are absolutely right. Some nude images DO seem like this - most likely some of these images actually ARE this. Not all though. Your second question goes some way to clarifying this concept.

 

Are nudity photos art? To me, art is anything produced through a learned thought process - a skill which has been honed over time to produce pleasing results. You might not think that changing the wheel of your car is art, but if you've ever seen the Ferrari pit crew changing the wheels of their Grand Prix cars during a race you might reconsider.

 

Of course you can't say nudity photo's are art - this is a generalization - in the same way you can't say that food tastes good. What you can say is that the skills to take correctly lit and exposed photographs is an art.

 

From a different perspective, the skills developed by the model to learn posing techniques consitute an art in my book. Now those skills are different depending on whether the intention is to create a beautifully lit form, or whether to incite arousal in the viewer - it is still an art.

 

Lastly, of course, there is the argument that some nudity photo's are NOT art. Those are the photo's which people make without learning any technique, and I think of these as simply voyeuristic snapshots. You know the sort I mean - like the "readers wives" publications of old.

 

Do I like art? Do you like art? - again, these are unanswerable generalisations. The definition of art is too wide, and has been discussed ad nauseum. It's like saying "do you like 'things'".

 

You need to split the term "art" into subcategories which are easier to manage. Similarly, you need to split "nudity photos" into more manageable sub-sub-sub-genres. Where you put the divisions between them is up to you. What I consider a run-of-the-mill portrait, may have been pornography to the Victorians (who couldn't show a womans ankle, let alone her knee), and would have probably had me incarcerated, or worse, if shown to the Spanish inquisition. It's not all about the changing attitudes over time, but about cultures around the globe. Many people can't go around without headscarves hiding their faces. How would these people view a portrait of a girl in a gym outfit? The only question here is "Do YOU consider 'nudity pictures' art?", and not "are they art at all".

 

I don't particularly like pornography, but it'd be very precocious of me to say that just because I don't like it, that it isn't an art. I don't like pickled gherkins either, no-one is going to tell me that they're not food though, just because I don't like them. I don't consider pornography "fine art" and I assume that many would agree. That said, the two genres do sometimems overlap, when taken in abstract. I still don't like them though.

 

So now, you know my opinion, maybe it's time to develop your own.

 

cheers, Guy

[john_macpherson]

I find it quite amusing that there are images that are 'fine', some that are 'art' and some that are 'nude' but the minute an image is labelled with all three as a 'fine art nude' it usually manages to become far less than the sum of its parts.

 

Theres a plethora of images on pnet that astonish me - where the photog has somehow figured out that women + clothing = boring crap, but women - clothing = fine art. How does this happen? What mental leap is occurring?

 

Pete M. - pleased you are letting go the N.Goldin thing - it could become unhealthy for you! :-)

 

Guy - you could have chosen a less phallic vegetable than a gherkin - maybe a well-shaped swede would have been more appropriate!

[Norma Desmond]

I vote for the gherkin!

[rachelfoster]

OK, up front: I've not read the entire thread. The topic gets old to me. So, if this has already been said...whatever.

 

Nudes are different depending on whether the model is male or female. Exploitation is inherent in many photographs of women. Now, the line between pornography and art: I'll cut to the chase and be more direct than the Supreme Court.

 

If it degrades and exploits, it's porn. Period.

[maddox]

Juan,

 

As far as nudity in itself being represented in photography, I think it's neutral. After all, "nudity" simply refers to the body without clothing. It's neither good nor bad. It simply IS. So, a photograph with nudity is simply a representation of a body without clothing. There's nothing either good or bad about it. The "good" or "bad" connotations come with the context, which can be very subjective.

 

As far as a given photograph of the nude being "Art" or "Porn" I think it basically boils down to the question of admiration versus desire. When you're looking at any given photo, what part of your nature does it appeal to? Does it appeal to your admiration of the beauty of the body, or does it appeal to your sense of sexual desire?

 

If the content of the photograph is more about admiring the body for its beauty, I'd say it's more likely art (or at least artistic in its intent.) If it's blatantly catering to your sense of sexual desire, I'd say it's porn.

[pradip_k_pande]

All good photographs generate some sensations in our body,a good landscape,a wildflower,wild animal,kids everything that has a good composition,good(plesant)light& good shadows ,experimentation behind it,are good photographs.these good photos generate sensation in the upper part of your body ...in the heart.brain.eyes.....NUDES too can be good if they have all the ingradients of a good photograph and generate sensation on the upper part of your body.....not & not in the lower one..

[petemillis]

John MacPherson - well shaped Swede....I'd second that ;)

[aimpic]

I've watched for a while now - my own survey if you like.

First, I like classy, naughty, arty with content, technically competent ... etc.

 

But I see a nude shot posted and the comments and praise even if it is technically not competent is amazing. Look at the views and watch the comments. Just a bunch of frustrated old or not so old guys who can't get opposite sex company.

[lee_ricks]

We are at this again. I like Ellis' response.

 

I do nudes. Sometimes it turns me on. Sometimes it is hard work.

 

Every session contains elements of all of it. Some is art and I show it to people as such. Some turns out to be cheesecake andsome people like that too. Most is crap or failed lighting/posing and it gets deleted. Every once in a while a session is hot as hell. As Jimmy Buffet said "Turning on the people is a very nice thing to do".

 

Try looking at it from behind the camera. It is a different experience that looking at pictures. But then so is all photography. I will say this. If making nudes offends you don't do it outside of school. But try to get to the bottom of that feeling for your own sake.

[erica_lynn]

Rachel-

Hello, my name is Erica. You photographed me this weekend as part of the Rocky Horror Picture Show cast. I don't know if this topic was simply out of curiosity or interest, but I've always been interested in artistic photographs of natural and realistic nudity. Sometimes I think the difference between porn and artful nudes is how near or far the body is to "the ideal". To see the beauty in real women's bodies is art. I would certainly consider posing for you if you are interested in doing some female nudes for experience.

Thanks again for photographing us this weekend.

Take care.

Erica.

[antoniobassiphotography]

I didn't have time to read the entire discussion so I hope that what I'm about to say hasn't

been said already.

 

I personally don't like nudes, or at least most of them. Sometimes I see very beautiful shots

done with great elegance and in a way that the beauty of the female body is enhanced to the

point that it overwhelms any tabu. Those shots I see extremely rarely. However, I have to be

honest: in most of the shots I see my eyes point straight to business and what I think is

"man, she is a piece of a..". Pure and simple.

[maddox]

Antonio, but IS IT that "pure and simple?" I don't think so. I really believe there's a lot more to it than regarding a woman's body as "a piece of a.." Don't get me wrong... I believe I understand what you're saying. And I'm not trying to be antagonistic here. However, your comment seems to me to stem more from youthful hormones than from your eyes and heart.

 

Obviously, it's only natural to have some sort of sexual element to your appreciation of a woman's body, even represented in a photograph or painting. After all, the power that the female body has to attract attention is part of its beauty... But, that's not ALL it is.

 

Also I believe that the "taboos" of representing the nude in art are created and imposed on us... Particularly in more "conservative" areas. Once a person un-learns these taboos, and replaces sentiments of "hot" or "sexy" with "Beautiful," a subtler, more profound and more rewarding appreciation emerges.

[janet cull]

>>>because it incites lustful thoughts of the forbidden in your head.<<<

 

Hm. Possibly. Or maybe his good training has taught him to respect another's *privacy*, and

that our private parts are just that. Maybe he knows that it's inappropriate to look at a

woman who is not his own wife and is seductively posed in the nude.

[maddox]

Janet, do you believe that all nudes are "seductively posed?"

[yeffe]

"it's inappropriate to look at a woman who is not his own wife and is seductively posed in the

nude."

 

Is this a call for women to wear burkahs in public?? I see plenty of women in public who can

be said to be seductively posing with exposed navels and such. Maybe blinders for men

would make you feel more comfortable.

[jgalyon]

Back to the original question... you must have never seen one or you wouldn't have to ask...

 

But seriously...you must have never seen one or you wouldn't have to ask...

[janet cull]

>>>Janet, do you believe that all nudes are "seductively posed?"<<<

 

Michael, No. Of course not. If I thought that I would have said just that - nude figures.

Surely you can tell the difference and know what kind of images so many take issue with?

Honestly. These go round and round.

 

Jeff. You've gotta be kidding. Yes - I think burkahs are it. Either nude or burkahs. Those

are our choices. Blinders? Of course. There's surely nothing between.

 

Ya'll are funny.