The Power and the Glory

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

Lannie--

I should add that I recognize that some of my words about your two stereotyping statements are likely harsher than they might have been. What, maybe, I would have been more prudent to have stated is this: When you make stereotyping statements that have no basis in fact and that you don't bother to back up with any rational statistics or studies, they can't be really responded to factually. The only thing we have left to wonder about are your motives for making them, since the statements themselves really don't even bear a serious factual or objective response. "Women like to feel special" has to be responded to by wondering not about WHAT you said but instead by wondering why in the world you would say it.

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

Do you not recognize "Women like to feel special" as a very patronizing thing to say?

jtk · May 23, 2009

" I said it before and I will say it again: please address the issues or get off the thread. The thread is not about me or my presumed psychopathology, John.

This is two requests that I have made. Malicious and defamatory remarks will not be tolerated on Photo.net anymore than they will in the larger society." ..Lannie K.

Lannie, Chill.

There's nothing "malicious" or "defamatory" in commenting on a seeming-obsession (and there's been zero mention of "psychopathology"). You claim the issue belongs to "society" rather than considering the possibility that you're experiencing anything personal.

The finest photographers sometimes seem to have obsessions (eg Richard Avedon, Galen Rowell)...it's not a curse.

Several serious contributors to this Forum have addressed your OT with respect and insight ...they all deserve more respect than you've shown: Fred G most obviously, has been impressively patient and courteous.

Lannie, you have created a great web site. Your individual photos are very fine and you have assembled them into "glorious" and "powerful" longer sequences...nonverbal essays perhaps. You are an emotionally responsive photographer... obsessive, even.

Landrum Kelly · May 23, 2009

Here is what I said in context , Fred, but with strong emphasis supplied now so that you do not keep missing it:

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 [of another woman] makes one's mate feel uncomfortable or insecure [or less special] , then perhaps it is wrong--not necessarily because it is inherently wrong, but because of persons' cultural baggage [or insecurities] - -maybe. Maybe there is more to it. I do not know.

</blockquote>

Now I think that there is more to it, much more.

Although these issues seem to take us beyond the scope of this thread, they bear upon why we might have strictures (even if only internal ones) against the public display of the body. That is, even if society did not frown upon it, if our mates felt threatened or demeaned by such public displays by other women, then we might feel that we should not gaze upon other women--out of loyalty to and respect for our mates , and for the sake of preserving that sense of specialness in a monogamous union. I say "women" here for the same reason I said "women" above: I speak as a straight male.

I stand by what I said. If all this seems to tie into my language of "sacredness" and other beliefs that I hold, so be it.

So, my conclusion is that we might justifiably have some of the norms that we have, if we are considerate of the rights of our mates and concerned for the protection of special monogamous bonds. I want to say "the rights of women," since this kind of gazing seems to be rather one-sided in straight culture: men staring at women, or portrayals of women in photos or paintings . (I cannot speak for gay culture.)

That is, there might indeed be very, very good reasons for wearing clothes besides hygiene and protection from the elements. Perhaps we are in so doing indeed trying to preserve a sense of both sacredness and specialness. Metaphors of a "veil" and of "lifting a veil' come to mind--whether a bridal veil, the veil of the temple that was rent in two at the death of Christ, or others from the time of the sacred Ark of the Covenant.

SOMETHING SACRED IS AT STAKE, AFTER ALL.

This concludes my remarks on this thread.

--Lannie

jtk · May 23, 2009

What's "sacred" is what we deem sacred. Some would say it calls for chador (Taliban), other would say it calls for ritual deflowering (feudal Europe or handgun-packing...as in Catron County, NM).

Sacred "monogamous bonds" don't seem to have much relationship to the prevalence of porn in relatively monogamous Abrahamic cultures, such as Florida's and Minnesota's.

Although I subscribe, as Lannie evidently does, to ideas involving porn and respect for women, I don't understand how monogamy or attire relate to photographic "power and glory" unless that phrase means arousal...which I would understand.

..."bridal veil" and "temple veil"...what happened to "veil of maya?" That's the veil that facilitates obsessiveness.

Allen Herbert · May 23, 2009

Perhaps we are in so doing indeed trying to preserve a sense of both sacredness and specialness. Metaphors of a "veil" and of "lifting a veil' come to mind--whether a bridal veil, the veil of the temple that was rent in two at the death of Christ, or others from the time of the sacred Ark of the Covenant.

It all depends on the mores and values of the society we are talking about; nakedness in some are not particular looked upon as having special significance. In other societies, a naked ankle would lead to erotic thoughts. As the veneers of civilisation, religion laid their cloak on society, sexuality and the naked body took on special significance. The freedom of the open mind is stolen and replaced with values based on dogmas and as those dogmas become entrenched special significance and meanings are given to them creating a kaleidoscope of coloured shifting patterns of understandings and symbolic messages.

The question to ask is why the Public nude would have any power other than the Artists talent which created it...and why would that Art be more significant than any other.

saskphotog · May 23, 2009

Fred:

"If everything is glorious, then I wouldn't care at all that the nude body is. Because glasses of water would also be glorious."

Thought for a second you were finally getting it.

"and just as importantly , ad nauseum."

Well, sorry about the nausea. Thank you for being so gracious about it.

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

Believe me, I know I was getting it.

You see, I started thinking about the tragedy in Darfur and how it is glorious, too, and how God works in mysterious ways . . . and, well, nausea.

Allen Herbert · May 23, 2009

“how it is glorious, too, and how God works in mysterious ways . . .”

It’s not so much a case of mysterious ways, Fred, although that also might be true. It is more of a case of free will, at least from the understanding of the deal struck in the Garden. We as a species, a life form wanting to do our own thing...

Work out the deal ourselves, so as to speak. That is the philosophy behind it, and i suppose the consequences.....if we choose to believe in such things.

Allen Herbert · May 23, 2009

“if we are considerate of the rights of our mates and concerned for the protection of special monogamous bonds.”

"SOMETHING SACRED IS AT STAKE”

Holy doctrine comes to mind when i read such words.

jtk · May 23, 2009

Allen, which "Holy doctrine" comes to your mind? Pentacostal, Hindu, NFL, NASCAR...?

Norma Desmond · May 23, 2009

Allen--

For now, I'll concern myself with where I choose to go while I'm here.

And speaking of choosing, I agree with you about free will.

What I was denying was Larry's statement "Everything is glorious."

I used Darfur as an example of something not glorious. We men and women screw a lot up. It all ain't so glorious.

As a matter of fact, as John pretty much already said, we are so free that we're even the ones who decide what IS glorious.

Now, I think we should get back to photographs of nudes or let this thread die a glorious death. I already feel like I've been bamboozled (and that's as much about my own weaknesses as anything else) into discussing way more religious philosophy and much less photography than I bargained for. And this is not a great place for that.

I don't want to claim the final word. So if anyone wants to respond, I'll be happy to read what they say but will likely keep my own mouth shut.

dougityb · May 24, 2009

wow, still going strong. I thought this thread ended more than a week ago.

luis_g · May 24, 2009

John Kelly wrote: "Sacred "monogamous bonds" don't seem to have much relationship to the prevalence of porn in relatively monogamous Abrahamic cultures, such as Florida's and Minnesota's."

For the record...

The states that *buy* (not watch for free) the most per cap Internet porn are: Utah, Hawaii, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alaska and California round out the top ten.

The most salient common denominators are: Belief in miracles, belief in the existence of God, and political conservatism, particularly being on the list of 27 states that have passed "Defense of Marriage" (anti-gay marriage) laws. These states tend to have higher divorce rates, from which one could reasonably infer less monogamous behavior.

Minnesota is 40th (tenth from the bottom) among states that buy Internet porn.

Florida, monogamous? LOL! It has the 8th highest divorce rate in the US.

Landrum Kelly · May 25, 2009

I "concluded" Saturday afternoon by saying that "Surely something sacred is at stake, after all."

Very well. (I do happen to believe that.) Nonetheless, does a nude necessarily profane the subject, sexuality, or even the monogamous order (if such is the order that one would defend and promote, as I would)?

Consider this photo:

http://www.photo.net/photo/9201374

It would be hard to argue that this photo profanes anything. If anything, it seems to represent the affirmation of what is good (and even holy or sacred, if one likes to use such language, as I admittedly do).

On the other hand, consider this variation of the same photo:

http://www.photo.net/photo/2991301

I confess that I like the first shot better. Is it because (1) I want to look at the woman's body and see it more clearly and thus brighter and in more detail or (2) because I hate the color of the frame?

Well, of course, that is my own problem (or existential quandary, or even "obsession," if John Kelly is correct), and I am not really asking for responses here to my own quandary.

Nonetheless, more generally, which is the better picture, and why?

More to the point of this thread, however, does the public display of nudity (qua the public nude as we have tried to define it above) necessarily imply any disrespect for the human body (or the sacredness of sexuality or the virtue of monogamy, if one wants to cast the question in such terms)?

In other words, does the public nude necessarily profane anything at all?

(In all of the above, I am using the distinction between the "sacred" and the "profane," a distinction which I find useless and meaningful. I recognize that not all persons do, and that some even seem to feel offended when I raise issues of or even make allusions to "sacredness." I am sorry, but that is the way that I prefer to cast the question. Others may choose to avoid such language--but that is their decision, and they are free to cast the question--and answer it--in language of their own choosing.)

In any case, I personally think that nudity has very little, if anything, to do with sacralizing or profaning of very much of anything (although I confess to being taken aback by pictures of nude weddings). As far as I am concerned, this photo, which shows a lot less, is a lot more "sexy" than either version of mother and child above:

http://www.photo.net/photo/9229276&size=lg

Is "sexiness" profane?

I sure hope not. Even if it were, it would not require nudity. Doug Burgess' photo clearly shows that.

--Lannie

saskphotog · May 25, 2009

"Believe me, I know I was getting it.

You see, I started thinking about the tragedy in Darfur and how it is glorious, too, and how God works in mysterious ways . . . and, well, nausea."

I'm sorry, Fred, but is it really appropriate to become that sarcastic, dismissive, and condescending? You do it too often. There are many positions with which you are perfectly entitled to disagree. In a philosophy forum one should expect disagreement, but too often your "disagreement" involves such derision.

Landrum Kelly · May 25, 2009

"Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being." - Albert Camus

</blockquote>

Fred, if an existentialist such as Camus can invoke lost innocence, surely I can, too.

Actually I can understand your being revolted by the idea that everything is glorious, implying (for some, at least) that everything is the will of God. I was teaching an Intro. to Philosophy course once when a student piped up (totally off-topic) and said, "I believe that everything that happens is the will of God!" I said, "Okay, let's accept that as our first premise: everything that happens is the will of God. Now let us posit a second premise: sin happens. Conclusion: sin is the will of God." She responded, "That's just stupid!"

I responded, "That's the point. It is not only stupid, but absurd. In other words, if we accpept your premise, then the conclusion is absurd. We have reduced your claim to absurdity, forcing us to re-examine your basic premise. This is what we call a reductio ad absurdum , a reduction to absurdity."

She said, "No, I just mean that the whole discussion is stupid. I think that philosophy is stupid. I think you're stupid."

Oh well. . . . We are yet left with the very challenging question as to how one can believe in God when the world is so full of random horror--or it sure appears to be random horror from where I sit. Is it conceivable that everything is the will of God? Is it conceivable, that is that the student could have been correct and that I could have been wrong? Well, my first premise is always, "I could be wrong." In this case, I hope that I am not. Is everything yet in some essential sense finally under God's control? I don't have anything to add to that age-old discussion.

On another issue above, you said,

"I think we should get back to photographs of nudes or let this thread die a glorious death. I already feel like I've been bamboozled (and that's as much about my own weaknesses as anything else) into discussing way more religious philosophy and much less photography than I bargained for. And this is not a great place for that."

</blockquote>

I don't think that you have been bamboozled, unless by God himself. I certainly had no idea where this discussion was leading when I started this thread. I believe that God refuses to let himself/herself/itself be roped off and totally excluded from anything. If there is a divine logos , then that logic is going to intrude from time to time into our casual complacency. I confess once again that I know nothing, except that I know nothing--a paradox, but not one that troubles me overly much.

"This is not a great place for that." I would submit to you that this is the only corner of the site where we may, if we choose, freely delve into metaphysical questions from time to time. Not everyone is going to agree on either premises or conclusions, of course, but that does not mean that persons have different "agendas," to use the word you used even earlier. I think that we simply have differing world views.

Aesthetics (or "esthetics," as I prefer) is in some ways the most challenging field of philosophy, for in it all of the other fields converge. Therefore discussions of esthetics invariably become messy.

This thread is no exception, and I am personally not at all surprised that it has gotten messy. I am a bit surprised by the particular mess that we have created or have been left with, but the messiness does not surprise me. I have to admit, though, that I am surprised that you are surprised that religious and other ultimate issues would enter the discussion when issues about nudity (especially public nudity!) were discussed.

One thing that is obvious is that nothing in philosophy is really obvious. If someone says that something is self-evident (including the claim that another's point of view is self-evidently wrong), a red flag goes up for me. Yes, this thread has gone off in some unusual directions at times. Even so, I confess to being surprised at your surprise.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 25, 2009

While we are on the subject of what is or is not glorious, Fred, let us put it to the test by applying the question of gloriousness to a photo that I referred to in my opening post. Let me put the issue this way: is this photo glorious or disgustingly pornographic?

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/3251073">http://www.photo.net/photo/3251073</a>

Whatever it is, it certainly is a challenge to prevailing mores and standards in this culture. So, to reaffirm my opening thesis, I believe that the public nude demonstrates at least some of its power by its capacity to both challenge the existing order and to provoke a reaction from those who wish to defend it. (There is nothing transcendental or religious in that claim on my part.)

To me it matters little to what extent this really is a nude "in public." She is clearly practicing for a public performance (well, actually, posing as if she were), which is not to say that the performance is to be nude. If it were, and if the photo had been made at an actual ballet performed in the nude, then surely its challenge would be even greater. That was not my point in referring to it earlier, however. I can see her as more likely practicing in the nude for a performance to be given clothed. The shot is obviously posed or set up, however, so that one can only imagine that it is actually a photo of a ballerina practicing in the nude. Somehow I am not shocked by the idea, nor titillated by it either. It is yet a powerful image, in my opinion, regardless of what one thinks about the nature and significance of its power.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 26, 2009

What's "sacred" is what we deem sacred. --John Kelly

</blockquote>

John, unless you are offering this as a definition, it has a relativistic ring to it.

It seems to me that there is a difference between what is deemed to be sacred and what really is sacred. The concept of the "Third Reich" was probably held to be sacred by Hitler.

Yes, my way of looking at the concept of the sacred implies a non-subjective standard, admittedly one that is unverifiable. Yes, I am assuming a transcendent source of that which is worthy of being deemed to be held to be sacred.

--Lannie

mike dixon · May 26, 2009

John, unless you are offering this as a definition, it has a relativistic ring to it.

</blockquote>

Of course it does. "Sacredness" is a relative concept. Do you revere cows or eat them?

saskphotog · May 26, 2009

I revere what I eat.

Landrum Kelly · May 26, 2009

I was using the term "relative" as it is used in ethical theory, Mike. The fact that what is deemed to be sacred is relative to culture is a fact that can be verified by anthropology. That is, I will be the first to concede that cultural relativism is a fact: what is deemed to be worthy does vary across cultures. Ethical relativism is another thing entirely: Questioning the worthiness of the belief system that would affirm that cows should be deemed sacred while persons starve is, for example, a challenge to a culture's values from another person's or another culture's perspective.

The distinction between cultural relativism and ethical relativism is central to all ethical analysis. The belief that cultural relativism necessarily implies ethical relativism suggests that one has given up on figuring out what is perhaps inherently more worthy or unworthy, good or bad, right or wrong, glorious or inglorious.

I see no glory or worth, for example, in a social order or empire that was predicated on the belief that the progress of humanity depended on the extermination of an entire race of people--but the fact that Jews and Nazis disagreed with regard to the value of the Aryan ideal is an empirically verifiable fact.

I think that the dispute between Larry Cooper and Fred Goldsmith over what is "glorious" ultimately reduces to this central distinction of ethical theory, and I have to side with Fred on this one--and not because he has an Ashkenazic name. What is at stake is the goodness, rightness, worthiness, "gloriousness" of something quite important: genocide. (No offense, Larry: I am not accusing you of advocating genocide. On the other hand, nothing that you have said about the "glorious" would give you firm ground to stand on in challenging the practice of genocide.)

Perhaps this distinction between two types of relativism is one reason that pointing out that differing cultures have differing views on the healthiness of displaying the naked body in public proves nothing . Having said that, however, I am still not sure how one can ever prove or verify any ultimate ethical claim--including this one.

Nor am I at all certain that displaying the naked body in public (or portraying it so displayed) implies anything about what truly is sacred or profane.

I do think that at some point we need to show how the various disputes treated in this thread relate to one another. Having said that, I am quite sure that we shall not achieve any consensus on most of the issues raised here.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 26, 2009

"Holy cow!" (Don't kill it! Don't eat it!)

"Holy naked body!" (Don't look at it! Don't photograph it! Don't model/display it!)

Hmm. Gotta think about this a bit more. . . .

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 26, 2009

Yesterday (May 25, 2009) at 8:29 a.m., I posted the following:

In all of the above, I am using the distinction between the "sacred" and the "profane," a distinction which I find useless and meaningful . (Emphasis supplied.)

</blockquote>

I made a serious error in typing that. I meant to say the following:

In all of the above, I am using the distinction between the "sacred" and the "profane," a distinction which I find useful and meaningful .

</blockquote>

Furthermore, I find the concept of the "sacred" to be useful, not useless. Whether it has any usefulness in terms of applicability to issues involving public nudity is perhaps one of the important points of contention on this thread. I think that, on many issues related to public nudity, the concept of the sacred is not only useful but essential.

It was apparently on that issue that Fred and I parted company.

--Lannie

luis_g · May 26, 2009

Since this thread is diffusing prodigiously, I would like to comment on this:

[LK]"I believe that everything that happens is the will of God!" I said, "Okay, let's accept that as our first premise: everything that happens is the will of God. Now let us posit a second premise: sin happens. Conclusion: sin is the will of God." She responded, "That's just stupid!" I responded, "That's the point. It is not only stupid, but absurd. In other words, if we accpept your premise, then the conclusion is absurd.

Not necessarily so. An Old Testament God is certainly capable of a Darfur, disease, Holocaust (such as those found in Deuteronomy) general smiting, ad nauseam. I was reminded of the story about the time Mother Theresa, at one of her African Missions, took her staff to the airstrip to welcome the permanent crew of nuns who would take over the little hospital she had created there. The plane came low, and an unexpected wind caused the pilot to lose control. The plane cartwheeled in flames, killing everyone aboard.

The nuns by the airstrip were crushed. They begged Mother Theresa for a word to carry them through this horror. Mother Theresa turned to them and said:

"This, too, is the Will of God."

Not everyone thinks of God in the same way.

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