The Power and the Glory

Norma Desmond · May 22, 2009

Lannie--

I appreciate that you are now forthcoming about your agenda.

I don't understand why you have once again stated that you see no glory in bodily secretions (Mapplethorpe's work). By now, I expect you would have understood what I've stated several times and in a variety of ways. That that's the point. Mapplethorpe's works are not about Glory, so you should consider them as an ALTERNATIVE and COUNTEREXAMPLE to your premise or original question about the status of public nudes as being about power and glory. If this thread was about the universal nature of power and glory as it applies to the public nude, it was a false premise. If the thread were simply asking whether power and glory applies to the public nude, the answer is SOMETIMES, but NOT ALWAYS. All of your examples and all of your writings indicate a predilection to want to see power and glory in the public nude. Great. Some of us have simply supplied alternatives. Once again, loudly and clearly, we have not provided these alternatives to show that there are other styles of public nudes that exhibit power and glory. No, no, no. We have provided examples of public nudes that DO NOT exhibit power and glory.

Like you, I respect those who find the human body so sacred that they want to display it in photographs and I respect those who find the human body so sacred that they wouldn't consider displaying it in a photograph. Where we differ is that I also acknowledge and want to explore along with and expose myself to those who DO NOT find the human body sacred. And I'm even open to what others might consider very profane Ideas when it comes to the human body. This aspect of the human body I do not, like you, relegate to sub genre. The guys pissing on each other in the eerily-lit back alleyway and the cross dipped in urine is right up there with and just as significant to the genre as the prettiest John Peri busty and "beautifully"-shaped woman on the neatest and cleanest New York City rooftop with the highest heals, displaying her glory for all the world to see.

--Fred

Norma Desmond · May 22, 2009

By the way, the point about Peri's relationship with his models: John Peri sounds like a nice guy, a stand up gentleman, which has nothing to do with his being more of or any better a photographer or artist. Hitchcock could be a real a**, a womanizer and self-assuredly exploitive ("actors are cattle"). Great director, great artist. Go figure.

Norma Desmond · May 22, 2009

Luis--

By the way, I'm sorry for not having already acknowledged your point relative to attraction about the males of various species including our own. One of the most surprising things to me about this thread was the seeming inability for some men to allow for even the possibility that women are not more exhibitionist than men (despite what they want to believe because they think all objects of voyeurism somehow desire to be looked at) and to truly not be able to acknowledge how much actual male exhibitionism there is even in the human kingdom. Thanks for your sobering reminders.

--Fred

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

THIS JUST IN : http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=6518&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

Since this thread from the beginning was about the issue of challenging prevailing values, orthodoxies, etc., I think that the article linked above might be germane in a kind of parabolic if not tangential kind of way. (Then again, one might argue that it goes to the very heart of what we are about in this discussion.)

Sorry not to respond to every point of every post, but I have a lot to do that I have been neglecting since this thread started way back on Monday, May 11--almost two full work weeks ago. In not responding, I certainly do not mean to suggest that the points made or questions raised are unworthy.

In any case, two themes that keep coming back to me that have had religious origins and overtones are (1) Augustine's concept of "forbidden fruit" and (2) "lost innocence" qua the "Paradise Lost" concept implicit in the biblical fable of Eden (and later in Milton in literature, etc.).

I still think that I see in much of the appeal of the public nude (to the extent that one might find it appealing, as all do not) as being related to these two themes. I still see the public nude, that is, as being interesting or appealing not only as aesthetics (and Fred has argued forcefully that it can sometimes be anything but) but also as a challenge to the prevailing social mores, or even the entire social order--even if the challenger is oblivious to the political implications of his or her art. Whatever else the "public nude" is or is not, that is, it is overwhelmingly forbidden in this culture, and in creating such art (or even in discussing it openly, publicly?) one is challenging the taboo status of such artistic themes.

Society has a lot of ways of cracking down on dissidents. One does not have to have tanks rolling over bodies in the middle of the night (Tianenmen Square) to feel the heavy hand of societal sanctions.

Thus the allusion at the outset to a university incongruously called "Liberty". . . .

I am sometimes "amused" when I read a moderator here on Photo.net saying that what is not tolerated on this site is political discussion. One does not know whether to laugh or cry.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

I am thus left with one question: IS THE PUBLIC NUDE A TABOO TOPIC ?

Our range of respondents has been wide, but our actual number of respondents has been remarkably small--and almost no women have joined the discussion.

Are people simply bored, or are they afraid to voice their opinions?

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

I appreciate that you are now forthcoming about your agenda. --Fred Goldsmith

</blockquote>

Umm, Fred, precisely what is my "agenda"? Please enlighten me.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

About a week to ten days ago someone on this thread said that the public nude was about my imagination. I denied that. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

I do believe that sexual imagination is an incredibly powerful force:

The writing near the end is Portuguese for "It's your imagination," followed by "Bobo!" which (like the identical Spanish word) means something like "Idiot!"

--Lannie

fate_faith_change_chains · May 22, 2009

Whatever else the "public nude" is or is not, that is, it is overwhelmingly forbidden in this culture

</blockquote>

Forbidden by who or what ? By the law ? By the government ? By the public ? There are many examples of public nude photography, done all over the world, where permission is being asked and given, and I don't think that first having to ask for permission ( and given ) equates with something therefore being forbidden.

I am thus left with one question: IS THE PUBLIC NUDE A TABOO TOPIC ?

</blockquote>

It isn't a taboo topic and I guess it isn't neccesarily a hot non-taboo topic either, at least not for photographers recognizing the topic of (public) nude photography as being a topic about just another genre among many in photography... But you seem to wish almost that it should be considered taboo, as it would then make a good case for your personal view of the pictures in your links, perhaps becoming in your eyes all the more ' powerful ' and ' glorious ', while in the end they are about perfectly lit beautiful naked women, models, posing / acting in front of a camera. Great. And this can not be ignored, no matter how much of the divine or sacred or glory you wish to see into the naked flesh.... almost like the guilty feeling priest, who alludes a concept of a heavenly garden of eve, full with innocent glory and power, to a suppressed basic instinct whenever it comes ' lingering ' on the surface of consciousness.

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

More ad hominen "arguments" . . . .

Ho-hum.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

This is not a public nude, but it is an absolutely beautiful image that I just stumbled upon, and so I will share it:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=9201374

Here is the literal incarnation of "the power and the glory," in my opinion.

--Lannie

fate_faith_change_chains · May 22, 2009

It is a beautiful picture, showing an emotion of innocence if you will between mother and child. But I have to wonder why you linked to it only until now, whereas previously, you only linked and seemed to focus on nude photography involving perfectly beautiful women / models which where photographed and seen in a very different context than the photograph in your last link.

Landrum Kelly · May 22, 2009

I just found it, Phylo, as I said above.

Obviously "the power and the glory" are not confined to the public nude.

When I started this thread way back on May 11, I had no particular plan for it, no agenda, and no idea as to how it would evolve over the next two or three days after that, much less almost twelve days later.

Nor had I given any particular thought to the phrase "power and glory." I had been playing an old Phil Ochs CD with a song by that name, and so the phrase came readily to my mind and my lips. Its origins in the Lord's Prayer never once crossed my mind at the time I named the thread. I wonder if they crossed Phil Ochs' mind when he wrote the song, since he was not particularly enamored of Christianity.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

"I still see the public nude, that is, as being interesting or appealing not only as aesthetics (and Fred has argued forcefully that it can sometimes be anything but) but also as a challenge to the prevailing social mores, or even the entire social order--even if the challenger is oblivious to the political implications of his or her art."

</blockquote>

Lannie, this is a prime example of where your agenda is showing, or at least your bias. I introduced examples of public nudes that aren't pretty, aren't beautiful in the same way a shapely, busty woman in high heels on a pristine rooftop is beautiful, aren't necessarily powerful in a certain sense of that word, and aren't glorious. The prejudice and agenda you show is that you translate that to my "forcefully saying the nude can be anything but aesthetic." NOT A CHANCE! The nudes I am talking about have way more significant aesthetic appeal (at least to me) than any of the nudes you've posted and they are very much art. As I've said several times, you are using very limiting language and concepts, a very narrow approach to these subjects.

"In any case, two themes that keep coming back to me that have had religious origins and overtones are . . . "

</blockquote>

As far as I can tell, a great deal of your thoughts on this subject have religious overtones, from "power" to "glory" to "sacred." I believe that is part of your agenda: to see this subject with an assumption that sacredness has something to do with it. I also think part of your agenda, and you've pretty much stated this from the outset, is to see the nude and the public nude from the standpoint of ethics. For you, it has been about what they challenge and what norms they go after, much less so about how they look and feel.

I am left wondering how a savvy philosopher with your background can label a thread "The Power and the Glory" and claim that its connotations are unrecognized, accidental, and unintended. Even if you didn't think specifically of the Lord's Prayer, which I certainly did as soon as I read the title (and I'm JEWISH, for heaven's sake), if you didn't sense the hyperbolic tone of such a title even if not connecting to the exact origin, then you truly were out of touch. Glory in itself is certainly a charged word, whether suggested by a Phil Ochs song or anything else, and to use it and then claim it to be totally benign is well . . . just hard to swallow. In any case, even if you didn't intend it, it certainly did start the thread off with a spin. You're continued use of "glory" and "sacred" throughout the thread certainly gives your posts a certain feel and bent, along with somewhat hyperbolized photographic examples of "traditional" and "sanitized" beauty, pristine representations of the public nude. All of this, I see as an agenda.

There's nothing wrong with agendas, as long as we recognize them. If you don't recognize any of this as an agenda, it will simply be another matter we disagree on.

My agenda has been a strong and deliberate one: to provide an alternative to what I see as your sanitized and social view of the nude, the public nude, aesthetics, and art. It has been to continually prick you to see outside your comfort zone and the confines with which you define art. It has been to try and show that there is something personal about the nude, not just something cultural and ethical, that there is something physical about the nude, not just something sacred, that we may use our senses as well as our Ideas in approaching nudes, and that our bodies and photos of our bodies sometimes draw us to dark places, lustful places, profane places. The dark, lustful, and profane places are every bit as aesthetic as the glorious ones.

saskphotog · May 23, 2009

"The dark, lustful, and profane places are every bit as aesthetic as the glorious ones."

There are only glorious ones. Every other label is cultural. Wait ..... I'm repeating myself.

Landrum Kelly · May 23, 2009

Fred, for those of us who were raised in Christian households, the phrase would be a trilogy: "the kingdom, the power, and the glory." I never once thought of the title of the novel or the song as having anything to do with the Lord's Prayer, but, yes, I sensed the transcendental overtones. That I cannot deny.

Most of all, however, I really did not spend much time at all thinking about a title, except that there is power of some sort in the image of the body, and there can be glory as well. That's really about it. By admitting that it can have power over me, I set myself up for criticism, and so I had some misgivings about using the title. If using that title has led me to realize its origins, then I am glad that I did. I genuinely hope that it is not a profane title--and, yes, the distinction between the sacred and the profane means a lot to me.

I am a theist, Fred. I posit God, not as self-evident, simply as a postulate--but one that I can argue for. I used words like "spirit" or "spiritual" because they are convenient, not because I am necessarily a traditional dualist. I am not, but neither am I a materialist monist. When I hear someone say that "God is a spirit," I want to wince, not because it is false but because the word "spirit" explains nothing. It is like one of Pareto's "residual categories" into which one dumps the unexplained. I yet at times am attracted to the idea of the divine as being "wholly other"--remember that I said, "at times." Other times, that seems to imply dualism and I shy away from it.

There are admittedly strong metaphysical underpinnings to my theorizing. I don't think of that as an agenda, but your usage of the term may vary.

I appreciate your efforts to offer sustained discourse and argumentation. Though we disagree on this and that, we can converse profitably, and I have enjoyed it.

I know that there are many other points that you have made that I have not tried to rebut or affirm, but that will have to be it for tonight. It is almost 2 a.m. here.

One last point just occurred to me: I wonder to what extent a truly special monogamous union is affected by the wearing of clothes, or failing to. Women like to feel special. They feel threatened by other women "showing their wares." (I speak as a straight male in my way of saying that. Perhaps I could have said that "mates like to feel special" and left it at that.)

If the blatant display of (or gazing at) the body makes one's mate feel uncomfortable or insecure, then perhaps it is wrong--not necessarily because it is inherently wrong, but because of persons' cultural baggage--maybe. Maybe there is more to it. I do not know.

My last remarks take us far afield of the thread, but such issues are always "out there" for me when discussions of nudity come up. I cannot speak for others.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

"except that there is power of some sort in the image of the body, and there can be glory as well. That's really about it. By admitting that it can have power over me, I set myself up for criticism, and so I had some misgivings about using the title."

</blockquote>

That's not "really about it." You also introduced the word "sacred." That confirmed the religious context for the word "glory." Though early on you claimed you didn't want this thread to be about you, by continually moving it back to the theistic context in which you want to view the subject matter and by continually using only examples that would illustrate that limited theistic context, you kept making it all about you, or at least your context. That sure feels like an agenda to me. You continually have couched this discussion within the confines of a theistic approach, assuming that sacredness applied. At the same time, you have denied that context, as you did early on in your response to John Kelly, when you claimed to be leaving the use of the word power "open-ended." You make that claim, but consistently, throughout the thread, bring power back to sacredness and tie it with worshipful glory.

"I posit God, not as self-evident, simply as a postulate--but one that I can argue for"

</blockquote>

I'm not a great student of logic but, being a philosopher, I thought I knew the basics. Isn't a postulate something not proved or demonstrated, something self evident, or at least a necessary decision? In any case, what I mean by agenda is a set of assumptions one begins with, particularly ideological assumptions. You may have an "argument" for God but I can guarantee that I would find at least one assumption in your so-called argument that would lead me to believe it's not an argument at all but, instead, the unarguable postulate you've already claimed it to be. I would never argue with faith. As a matter of fact, I admire genuine faith when I come across it. Arguments for God, not so much. And arguments against God, not so much either. It's territory I generally don't argue about. It feels like you are trying to have it both ways . . . a postulate and not a postulate.

"I wonder to what extent a truly special monogamous union is affected by the wearing of clothes"

</blockquote>

When I'm talking about nudes in art, the effect of wearing clothes on monogamous unions doesn't come to mind. This is a stretch of glorious proportions. Since the divorce rate within my own American culture is about 50% these days, I'm not sure how much importance we should put on monogamous unions and I don't think it's public nudity or even the threat of public nudity that's playing a terribly important role in undermining them. Monogamous relationships would be an issue for a different thread.

"Women like to feel special."

</blockquote>

Another statement like "women are exhibitionists." These kinds of stereotypes are so out of my range and way of thinking that I will note this one but not address it.

"mates like to feel special"

</blockquote>

Yes, and so might the single people I know. Male and female. So what?

"If a blatant display of the body makes one's mate feel uncomfortable or insecure . . . "

</blockquote>

. . . it should be taken up with the mate, perhaps in a counseling session, but seems an odd introduction in a philosophy forum about photographs. We have had many, many examples of photographs of nudes in this forum (unfortunately most of them pretty much the same). Not one suggests anything about the mates of the nude person in the photo and not one of the photos even suggests that any of the nude models have mates. I haven't a clue what relevance a mate's reaction has to the topic or anything that's been said so far.

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

Larry--

"Glorious" is just as cultural a label as the others. It's part of a language that is understood within a cultural context just like every other word.

Landrum Kelly · May 23, 2009

I'm not a great student of logic but, being a philosopher, I thought I knew the basics. Isn't a postulate something not proved or demonstrated, something self evident, or at least a necessary decision? In any case, what I mean by agenda is a set of assumptions one begins with, particularly ideological assumptions. You may have an "argument" for God but I can guarantee that I would find at least one assumption in your so-called argument that would lead me to believe it's not an argument at all but, instead, the unarguable postulate you've already claimed it to be. --Fred Goldsmith

</blockquote>

One can postulate something whether or not one feels the need to argue for it or not--although I think in general we do postulate that which we cannot prove. You are right that typically we postulate something that we expect to be true, and so there is a tendency to beg the question, to assume that which we want to prove. One must resist that, of course. With regard to the question of the existence of God, I consider the teleological "proof" of the existence of God to be fallacious, but I can use still argue for God in terms of quasi-teleological considerations-and perhaps those arguments can be quite powerful, if properly qualified and hedged about. Still, you are right: this is perilous territory, and one must be very careful not to beg the question, that is, not to assume that which I would like to prove. (I redefine it again not for you, Fred, but for others who are not familiar with philosophical terminology.)

In any case, I am not talking about proving the existence of God, since I do not believe that any such proof is possible--and the history of philosophy is replete with failed attempts to prove the existence of God, as you well know. So, for both myself and the argumentation which I have offered in this thread, issues related to the existence of God will have to remain matters of faith, since no proof is possible. I have assumed the existence of God, for purposes of participating in this forum and on this thread. I will not argue here for the existence of God, since this is not a thread on metaphysics or theology. For now, that is, I will simply assume the existence of God. I have done so throughout the thread. How much it has affected the trajectory of my argumentation on the question of the "glory" of the nude, and especially the "public nude," will remain problematic, although I do not doubt that it has affected it--and you have seen that, it appears. I have never tried to hide the assumption. It is simply that positing the existence of God tells us ipso facto nothing about the merits of nude photography of any sort.

The sacred? Well, you are right that I have at least implicitly (if not explicitly) considered the issue of whether or not something is sacred. I am not trying to hide the issue. This could get us pretty far afield, or it could get us right to the core of the issues, depending on one's entire world view.

I alluded to the sacred and sacredness throughout the thread in part because, in the back of my mind (also throughout the thread), were always unanswered questions about (1) the wholesomeness of viewing nudes in general in the name of art and (2) because, as the issue of "glory" came to be more and more contested, it was clear that there might be religious/metaphysical connotations to the term "glory" that had not occurred to me at all when I first used it in the title. I am not sure how deeply I want to delve into that issue, but it might be worth coming back to later if I see that it is relevant to my argument or to other contested issues. For now I want to put it on the back burner. (We shall see if that is possible.)

As for the admittedly "out-of-the-blue" issue about whether one's mate's views should affect the decision of whether or not one should view nudes, that was a purely personal consideration. Even so, since it is hardly uniquely my personal consideration (being evident in some form in many persons' objections to viewing and/or evaluating nudes), it seemed to me timely for me to introduce that issue. I did not mean to hijack my own thread with that issue, but maybe it goes to the core of what we have been discussing. Perhaps not.

This is my hurried response to your comments and questions. I can do better, but I am pressed for time now. (This thread has been incredibly time-consuming for me over the last twelve days).

I did, however, want to acknowledge at least some of your comments here, even if I was not able to do justice to the issues you have correctly raised in the time I have available this morning. Since I very hurriedly looked over your post before starting, I apologize up front if I have misunderstood or inadequately addressed some or all of your concerns.

In my own defense, I had no idea when starting this thread that it was going to get so "heavy" on the theoretical issues. Nor did I anticipate the likelihood of locking horns with a professional philosopher of your caliber. This is still a photography site, after all, not a site or a forum about either general philosophy or ethics.

Even so, the philosophical questions will go away once raised. At some point one has to bring closure to a line of argumentation, even if that closure is typically premature. The reason for that, as you know, is that we are not going to lay these issues to rest on this forum, much less this thread.

I am still not sorry that I started it. It has been a learning experience.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 23, 2009

Two quick points:

(1) Having only ten minutes to edit what one has written before the clock runs out and the post is written into stone, although necessary for this kind of online forum, means that we often do not get all the bugs worked out of our arguments before we post them, and that fact sometimes affects the quality of argumentation. I typically do not publish anything anywhere until I have had time to review it at leisure. That has not been an option here (given my own personal limitations of time as well), and I apologize for any lapses of grammar, spelling, or logic that might have inadvertently weakened my argumentation. The urgency which this type of interaction brings leads me to hurry the process at times--and that can surely make for some real logical howlers. In addition, in the process of writing corrections, one sometimes fails to make the ten-minute deadline set by the clock on this site. It happens a lot for me, especially on long posts--and not just here, but on forums on technical issues as well. I see no way to change that, however, without slowing down the pace of exchanges. Online forums are hazardous if what one wants to argue for or against is in the ream of socially sensitive questions.

(2) Personal (sometimes unstated or even unexamined) assumptions do, of course, affect the direction of argumentation. We nonetheless need to be on the lookout to be sure that speculating about another's unstated premises does not degenerate into ad hominem arguments. When attacks on persons (or their possible motives ) have taken the place of critiques of arguments or postulates , then one has moved from philosophy into something else that I do not want to be a part of.

Point two above holds even if one has correctly interpreted another's motives. The analysis of motives is for psychology, not philosophy, and I am not sure that it is too helpful in psychology, for that matter.

In any case, this is not a psychology or public issues forum. There is no room here for attacking another's motives, and one often attributes to others one's own motives in the first place, wounding not only feelings but bringing down the level of discourse to radio talk show levels.

We have generally avoided that tendency here, but we have to keep the bar high if we are going to be doing genuine philosophy here, rather than personal assault.

--Lannie

fate_faith_change_chains · May 23, 2009

I know what's being meant with it but nevertheless the concept of being a professional philosopher seems very strange to me. Like the concept of being a ' professional human '.

Landrum Kelly · May 23, 2009

I use the term reluctantly, Phylo, but the usage is already established, and it has some limited utility.

I personally believe that everyone (or almost everyone) is a philosopher qua a lover of wisdom.

I use the term "professional philosopher" to differentiate between those who also do this for a living and those who do not, and not solely as part of personal introspection and day-to-day decision-making. Professional philosophers are also often in the teaching profession, and I do believe that they have their function. The tragedy is that philosophy itself tends to get relegated to the sidelines and cordoned off, as if there were not philosophical implications and issues in every field of endeavor.

In addition, philosophers who do this for a living (i.e. , much of the time) often understand which kinds of rules promote the kinds of discussion which generate more light than heat. They might also know the "terrain" of various issues better by virtue of having crossed it so often, and thus be able to anticipate where an argument is likely to go (except when they have fossilized their world views and become absolutely useless). Finally, they have developed and learned terminology and jargon which can serve as a kind of shorthand so that everything does not have to be constantly redefined.

The case is analogous on that last point to professional photographers who know in an instant what "depth of field" is and what affects it, or what "exposure value" is, or what "stopped down" means, among many other possible examples. They can talk more quickly with other photographers by using such jargon, even if their jargon makes them hard to understand for persons unfamiliar with the jargon.

That said, I do not see any direct evidence that "professional philosophers" are any wiser in their personal decisions or any better off in terms of the quality of their lives. (See any analogs there in photography? I think that many good amateur photogs beat the pants off some professionals. The same is true in philosophy.)

I used the term reluctantly at the very outset, but I used it for a purpose--and that was not to enhance my credentials. For the record, I actually teach political philosophy (usually known unfortunately and ambiguously as "political theory") in a political science department--most of the time.

I do appreciate and understand your recoiling at the use of such a term.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

Lannie--

You probably weren't referring to me when you talked about ad hominem arguments, which I try to avoid. At the same time I recognize the difficulty, when discussing such personal matters as our photography and nudity, in trying to avoid the "persons" behind the ideas. In a purely philosophical setting, such as academia (by the way, I am not a professional philosopher; I don't earn my living doing this), it is hard enough to avoid discussing motives and personalities. In a Philosophy of Photography forum, I give myself and others a little more leeway. These are personal matters and I actually think, regarding our photograph making and photograph viewing, motives matter a great deal.

I have tried several times to bring this to a more specific photographic discussion, especially the parts about the difference between the moment or situation we are photographing and the actual photograph, the difference between being nude in public and the public nude in a photograph. Though you and Beepy acknowledged it as an important point, you weren't able to sustain any real talk about it in favor of more "distanced" theoretical musings. I tried coming back to it a couple of times to no avail. I also tried to talk about why I, myself, photographed nudes and you didn't respond to that with personal photographic experiences either. I actually think that being more personal and dealing with intent and motives in this forum and even in this thread, without attacking each other, would be helpful.

When statements are made like "women are exhibitionists" and "women want to be special," especially within the context of a supposedly "open-ended" philosophical discussion about nude photographs -- where only examples of women (rather than men) and only examples of a certain physical type of woman, and only examples of a certain kind of view of these types of women (beautified and idealized, high-heeled and fur-coated) -- are offered, I do get very ad hominem indeed. It suggests to me that the person making the statements does have an agenda, and a very limited and focused one. It suggests a guy who is out of touch, kidding himself, and really has not only a backwards view of the world and of both men and women, based more on centuries of nonsensical stereotyping and lack of critical thought rather than any kind of evolved thinking, recognition of the individual differences within so-called identity groups, and simply falling back on easy ideas rather than the more difficult task of really exploring new avenues and possibilities. This is exactly the kind of ad hominem response the two statements deserve. The two statements are, themselves, ad hominem. They are personal statements assuming the motives and desires not just of an interlocutor, but of an entire class of persons. The statements are not factual and no attempt is made to back them up with statistics. They are pure projections, just like all ad hominem statements. My responses to you on these statements are not meant as pure attacks but they are certainly meant to show my great offense at your words and as an alert for you to realize that your thoughts here are not givens of any kind, but rather betrayers of your prejudices.

saskphotog · May 23, 2009

""Glorious" is just as cultural a label as the others. It's part of a language that is understood within a cultural context just like every other word."

While that is absolutely true, to dismiss any idea simply because it was being communicated with a cultural tool is just a language trick, and makes all language is useless. I was hoping to use culturally understood concepts to communicate an idea that is not just cultural. I have only English, and I have only my assumptions about what words mean. Within that limitation:

Everything is glorious. The dark, lustful, and profane places are aesthetic because they are glorious. Aesthetic qualities of art, in all its forms, arise because the art manages to trigger an awareness (sometimes not even conscious awareness) in the observer of the "glorious" connections between all things - the oneness of it all. Culture obscures that unity with language that creates illusions of dualities that do not, in fact, exist.

Human bodies have the same "power and glory" whether they are clothed, or naked, and in any context. Any belief that there is more power and glory in nakedness, or nakedness in any specific context, is just cultural. Using language to articulate language created illusions leads to lots of language, but obscures the glory.

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

No. Actually, what makes language useless are statements like "Everything is glorious." It makes "glorious" universally redundant. If everything is glorious, then I wouldn't care at all that the nude body is. Because glasses of water would also be glorious. I assume the OP brought up the "glory" of the nude because it is in some way unique or different from glasses of water. He was suggesting that one of those differences was its power and glory. If not, we could be discussing photographs of anything. But we're not. We're discussing the nude and its supposedly unique or special aspects. To suggest that the nude is special because it's glorious and then go on to assert that everything is glorious kind of undercuts the specialness of the nude. I know, I know, but everything is special. Ad infinitum . . . and just as importantly, ad nauseum.

I wasn't dismissing the idea of glory because it is cut with a cultural tool. I was suggesting that it is as cultural as every other word in the sentence of mine you had quoted which includes "dark," "lustful, and "profane." In asserting that aesthetics and glory were inextricably linked, you had specified only that the others were cultural. I was replying by reminding you that "glory" was cultural as well. I was only dismissing glory form applying to SOME photographic nudes. I'll stand by that without thinking that I am rendering language useless.

Landrum Kelly · May 23, 2009

You probably weren't referring to me when you talked about ad hominem arguments, which I try to avoid. At the same time I recognize the difficulty, when discussing such personal matters as our photography and nudity, in trying to avoid the "persons" behind the ideas. In a purely philosophical setting, such as academia (by the way, I am not a professional philosopher; I don't earn my living doing this), it is hard enough to avoid discussing motives and personalities. In a Philosophy of Photography forum, I give myself and others a little more leeway. These are personal matters and I actually think, regarding our photograph making and photograph viewing, motives matter a great deal.

</blockquote>

I do not think of you, Fred, when I think of persons who tend particularly toward the ad hominem , although we all do it at times on these public forums.

Notwithstanding your very valid points above, I do think that we need to hold ourselves in check (vis-a-vis ad hominems ) even more when discussing sensitive issues that can socially stigmatize persons: such attacks can have a chilling effect on both discourse and self-revelation.

We actually tend to want persons to open up and tell us more about themselves, but, if we bash them or otherwise embarrass or humiliate them, they are going to clam up in order to protect themselves--or they will simply leave for more hospitable climes.

Motives do matter, but speculating on others' motives in an accusatory or hyper-critical tone does not help anyone. I have been accused (validly) of doing so as well. We all do it. I just think that we need to call each other on it in a firm but humane way, so that persons will want to come around and want to share themselves with us--and so that we can share ourselves with others.

Now let me read the rest of your post(s). . . .

--Lannie

Sign In

The Power and the Glory

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in