The Power and the Glory

[saskphotog]

<p>It was a mistake for me to use the verb "is" in my "Everything is glorious" statement. "Can be" should have been used instead; and I should also have said everything can be inglorious (or maybe nauseating). </p>

<p>To suggest that glasses of water, or something we eat, or terrible acts of violence, or nudes, or photographs of naked people in any particular context, cannot be glorious, is to be blinded by culture and personal bias, and to fall victim to the belief that a duality exists where it does not.</p>

<p>Even genocide will, in fact, have its glory.</p>

<p>"After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips." - Viktor Frankl</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>"Let me put the issue this way: is this photo glorious or disgustingly pornographic?<br>

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

Whatever it is, it certainly is a challenge to prevailing mores and standards in this culture".</p>

<p>What it is, or appears to be, is a traditional fine art nude study. I cannot imagine how it is a challenge to the "prevailing mores or standards of this culture"</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot imagine how it is a challenge to the "prevailing mores or standards of this culture"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I do not think that it is a challenge to the prevailing mores or standards of an <strong><em>artistic </em> </strong> culture or subculture. For me such a photo is much more likely to be a challenge to the prevailing mores and standards of <em>American culture in general</em> --although we surely have a great number of subcultures in this country. The culture of New York city is not that of a small town in North Carolina, such as the one I currently live in. Nor is the culture of this town the same as that of Charlotte, thirty-five miles away. Religious denomination, educational attainment, and socio-economic level in general are also factors, I think, in terms of predicting reactions of individual persons anywhere.</p>

<p>For the record, the photo I asked about is quite "glorious" to me and not in the least pornographic. That does not settle (for me) all of the ethical questions raised in this thread, but, as for the image itself, I do not find it in the least objectionable or offensive. Pornography, like beauty, is overwhelmingly (although not necessarily always or only) in the eye of the beholder, and either the closed or the dirty mind will find filth everywhere.</p>

<p>I mean here by "glorious" simply that it is beautiful, even inspiring. I do not mean by using this term to re-open the discussion as to what is the essence of "glory." I did not, when I first used the term "glorious" in this thread, think of it in a religious sense, but in a purely artistic and even emotional sense. I do not deny the spiritual connotations of the word, however.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Even genocide will, in fact, have its glory.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Larry, I thnk that I know what you mean, but I would prefer to say that the human <em>response</em> to genocide (or any kind of persecution or injury) can be glorious. I see nothing in genocide <em>per se</em> that I could possibly call glorious.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>An Old Testament God is certainly capable of a Darfur, disease, Holocaust (such as those found in Deuteronomy) general smiting, ad nauseam. --Luis G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, now that we are deeply into theology proper, may I only say that I hope that God is not so vindictive and petty as that. You also say, Luis, that "Not everyone thinks of God in the same way."</p>

<p>This is precisely the point. In the Christian tradition, one also finds great variation. Some see in the death of Jesus of Nazareth the literal cancelling of sin through blood sacrifice. Others of us see that kind of language ("taking away the sin of the world" through "shedding the blood of Christ") as at best metaphorical.</p>

<p>These considerations take us far afield, however. I think that we got here by talking about genocide, which was triggered by reference to sacredness, which is turn was triggered by references to both "shame" and "glory," which discussion was triggered by my unfortunate use of the word "glory" in the title of this thread.</p>

<p>If I had to bring God into the discussion of my original question, it might be only to ask to what extent there might or might not be something in our God-given nature that makes the nude, particularly the public nude, something that we would tend to cover up or avoid. If so, why? Is something sacred at stake? Are some persons' (including other women's as well as men's) insecurities, etc. sufficient to impel us to cover up ourselves or ask (much less force) others to do that?</p>

<p>Having asked that question, however, I do not wish to re-open the "nature (genetics) v. nurture (acculturation)" issues that we discussed earlier.</p>

<p>As for "asking" versus "forcing" others to cover up, we get into issues of law and public policy--also not the topic of the original posting.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[don_e]

<p>"Well, I do not think that it is a challenge to the prevailing mores or standards of an <strong><em>artistic </em> </strong> culture or subculture. For me such a photo is much more likely to be a challenge to the prevailing mores and standards of American culture in general...although we surely have a great number of subcultures in this country. "<br>

"For the record, the photo I asked about is quite "glorious" to me and not in the least pornographic."</p>

<p>I guess for anyone who thinks any display of "privates" is pornographic this is pornography. I've read there are such people. In that case, it doesn't matter which photo (or painting, or illustration, or cartoon, or statue) you might link to as long as there was some evidence of "privates" displayed. The fine art nude is intended to be "beautiful" in some way and not pornographic. If that is a point you are making, (perhaps a trenchant point in 1909) it hardly seems worth the effort today. It doesn't qualify as a "public nude", either, although your response to it is that it suggests (to you) practicing for a (public) performance.</p>

<p>Some photos you've called "public nudes" seem urban variants of the 'environmental nude' (which are situated in nature)...Brian Grossman's Iron and Flesh I'd call an urban environmental nude, if I needed a label. When I first read "public nude" I thought of something else than what you've linked to. I thought of photographs of public nakedness, which you can study by a Google Image search on "nude in public". Photographing (or Photoshopping) naked young women in a crowded venue surrounded by the attired is, possibly, a subculture in itself. The photo of "the model sitting self-assured as if she were the CEO calling the board meeting to order" (or someone sitting in their dining room posing for her boyfriend) reminds me of the photos in ads that appear on web pages where one has entered one's city or zip -- all those hot young women in my town who want to meet me, with photos of their charms on display. My point is in the most general of all cultures, the www, "public nudes" are commonplace and are part of our culture, not a challenge to it.</p>

<p>"Glory" is often a religious term, or at least one with spiritual connotations. The "effulgence of glory" is the halo or aura, something limned by ethereal light, the shekinah of the kabbalists. The melam by which the Sumerians distinguished a human from a god might be the earliest known evidence for the idea, going back 4000 years give or take.</p>

<p>If we can set aside the issue of public nude and pornography, I am in some agreement with you regarding glory. What is glory but light? Not the natural light, but the intellectual light that limns the photograph. If it is there, and if one sees it there, then the photo is "glorious". Otherwise, it is something else, maybe pornography. It hardly matters. Too bad for those viewers who do not see it; it is a challenge they do not know is there.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>". . . those viewers who do not see it. . ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is an interesting juxtaposition of words, Don, an oxymoron if taken out of context. In addition, since you are talking about light, it can be restated as "those viewers who do not see the light," or even "those who look at the light but still do not see it."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Lannie, I think we can safely infer what Don meant.<br>

Something akin to Jeremiah 5:21 "21 Hear now this, O ^a <a title="TG Foolishness." type="B" href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jer/5/21a" title="TG Foolishness.">foolish</a> people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and ^b <a title="TG Watchfulness." type="B" href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jer/5/21b" title="TG Watchfulness.">see</a> not; which have ears , and ^c <a title="Matt. 13: 14." type="A" href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jer/5/21c" title="Matt. 13: 14.">hear</a> not".</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yes, Don's point was quite clear, Luis. I was also reminded of the popular saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." The biblical phrasing is admittedly more powefrul (or at least more eloquent), and thank you for including it: "without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not." Yes, that says it all.</p>

<p>I yet do not presume that I "see" <em>qua</em> understand all that there is to see on these issues, of course. It is conceivable that those who are still coming from the fundamentalist tradition see<em> qua</em> understand more than I do, or are seeing something to which I am blind. Even so, I would hope that they would at least try to understand that it is possible for different persons to look at the same image for very different reasons.</p>

<p>I was actually raised in the fundamentalist tradition, and even in the 1980s (when I was in my forties and had long since abandoned that tradition) when I was showing my father the book <em>Eyelids of the Morning</em> (which shows not only crocodiles but also a few pictures of topless African women), he questioned why those pictures had to be included in a book about fresh-water crocodiles on the Nile. The images in question were indeed free-standing portraits of the women interspersed throughout the regular narrative of the book, and they were beautifully done. Yes, they could have been omitted without affecting the narrative, and perhaps they were even extraneous to it, but I told my father that I thought that they were included because of their artistic value.</p>

<p>His response was "That's how pornography got started, in art."</p>

<p>How does one respond to that? I loved my father very much, but my own presumption is now (as it was then) that pornography begins in the heart, not in "art." I yet understand the impulse to veil that which is deemed to be sacred, or even merely "special," to preserve it for the eyes of one special person. I do know that persons' insecurities come into play, however, and so it is hard to know what really drives persons when they recoil from the portrayal of the nude form.</p>

<p>I also understand to what extent the mere viewing of a nude person (in the flesh, in a sexual context, not so much in a photo) can be an act closer to having sex than contemplation, for it is possible to "devour"<em> </em> a person with one's eyes, to "feast" one's eyes, etc. There certainly can be a kind of "sexual partaking" in the process of looking, even when such looking is in the context of a loving relationship, not as a predatory act. Much overtly tactile sexual activity begins with the visual impact, which then proceeds to the visual "partaking"--and beyond.</p>

<p>Having said that, I am yet back where I started: what is deemed erotic or sexual seems to have more to do with the motives of the person than with precisely how much is visible. In addition, there is the further complication that we have all thought about: if one decides that "too much" is visible, where would one perchance draw the line between what is deemed to be acceptable versus what is "too much"?</p>

<p>Don made allusion to the year 1909, a century ago, when Victorian norms reigned supreme, and women's blouses were typically still buttoned all the way up to the neck. I hear people say that we have now "gone too far," and so once again one wants to know what is meant by "too far." Where, again, is that "line" that one would draw to demarcate the "decent" from the "indecent"?</p>

<p><strong>I go into these issues at some depth here because the <em>public nude</em> (in some sense) seems too far past many persons's "line." Indeed, such portrayals are not only "too far' but "far too far."</strong></p>

<p>I am suddenly reminded of the title of a song that came out in 1970, "In the Year 2525": will persons still be discussing these issues (at times with some vehemence) five hundred years from now, or will these issues have been resolved and some consensus have been achieved?</p>

<p>Frankly, I am not optimistic. Some people are saying (as I suspect that some people always have), "What's all the noise about?" Those people scare me the most, for they have never even seen the problem that others are earnestly trying to understand and address. That is, when something is "self-evidently obvious" to some (on either side) while others are still struggling to formulate the questions that divide us, a little red flag goes up for me.</p>

<p>That is my way of saying that I do think that there is something of great importance in these issues, and I do not like to see important issues trivialized.</p>

<p>Sometimes something that appears to be simple is, when one begins to examine it closely or to converse with others, not simple at all. I think that a whole complex of issues surrounding the "public nude" is a testament to that. If philosophers seem to be wanting to beat a dead horse, perhaps it is because the horse really is not dead, <em>i.e</em> ., the issues really have not been resolved at all. They have not even been carefully addressed, or even been recognized as being worthy of being addressed.</p>

<p>So, when I hear someone suggest that these issues are "last century's problem," I know immediately that that person fails to see the problem--fails even to understand or to take it seriously.</p>

<p>That person is a lot like the fundamentalist, even if he or she is on the other side of the fence: everything is so simple and self-evident to him.</p>

<p>It is difficult to carry on a conversation with someone like that.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[don_e]

<p>"Lannie, I think we can safely infer what Don meant."</p>

<p>"Yes, Don's point was quite clear, Luis."</p>

<p>If in this forum anyone ever asks me what I meant by anything I've written I am likely to drop dead from astonishment.</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>"His response was "That's how pornography got started, in art."<br>

How does one respond to that?"</p>

<p>How about: That's true. The oldest pornography in the West is ancient Greek --pre-classical era vase art (or at least that is all that remains of it). It is elegant and comic. In classical Athens comedies had pornographic elements. For the Greeks porn seems to be of the comic. Until the invention of photography, porn was a high class act and expensive. Commoners had to do with scratchings on outhouse walls or more likely their imaginings.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Well, as the thread finally seems to be grinding to a halt, I have but one last parting observation. Given the erotic potential of the nude (and given the corresponding difficulty--if not virtual impossibility--of factoring out the sexual component from other aesthetic components), I offer this admonition: if one is going to shoot or view nudes, then one does well to <em>know one's motives</em> , and one must also be honest enough with oneself to <em>admit one's motives</em> to oneself.</p>

<p>In other words, the ancient Greek maxim "Know thyself" seems nowhere more relevant or compelling than on the myriad issues that we have discussed here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>Do you think the nude is that special? Do you not think it's a good idea to "know one's motives" and "admit one's motives to oneself" regarding many other types of photography? How about when doing people's portraits, something I consider a very intimate form of photography? I just spent a couple of weeks photographing people with special needs living in a farming community in New Hampshire, at work, at play, at home, together and alone. Good idea to know and admit my motives? Would these admonitions of yours apply just to nudes? If so, why? If not, why are you singling out nudes in this respect?</p>

<p>There are many kinds of intimacy as important and more important than erotic intimacy.</p>

<p>Additionally, there are many kinds of photographs I may take just because I want to take them. My motives, in many cases, are unimportant. What's important is the picture I get. Why would nudes not sometimes fall under this category? Whether or not I'm concerned with motivation has to do with a lot of factors; a nude subject is not high on my list of those factors.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, will your New Hampshire photos be online somewhere? Are they now?<br>

I share your view about intimacy...it's more rare than eros. I'd not thought to use the term, but I think it's part of what I'm after in the portraits that most concern me these days (another part is something about emotional context...what's going on behind the subject's habitual photo-subject expressions...that I'm hoping to see through? )<br>

Lannie, I'm curious about "admit one's motives." The word "admit" seems to imply guilt. We're awash in eros, right? But we're not awash in intimacy, I think. Where does guilt fit into this? Perhaps we should feel more guilt about lack of intimacy?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>John, my use of the phrase <em>"admit one's motives</em> to oneself" means simply what I said in my last paragraph about "knowing oneself," nothing more, nothing less. I have not used "admit" to imply guilt or a sense of guilt.</p>

<p>Fred, Thomas Nagel and other philosophers have done some interesting work in philosophical journals on the nature of ethics as it applies to issues related to sexuality. Every issue on this thread raises many spin-off issues (some petty and niggling, some very profound and worthy of separate threads), and so the thread at some point becomes extraordinarily time-consuming--and at some point one simply walks away from it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>I will be creating some sort of presentation of my New Hampshire photos and will let you know when I have it ready. I have a lot of stuff to go through and want to put it together effectively. Thanks for the interest.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"[T]he ancient Greek maxim "Know thyself" seems nowhere more relevant or compelling than on the myriad issues that we have discussed here."</p>

<p><b>Lannie--</b></p>

<p>I wouldn't question the "Know thyself" part of your proposition. But I would question the "seems nowhere more relevant or compelling than on the myriad issues that we have discussed here."</p>

<p>I think much more soul searching and "knowing thyself" would better be applied, for example, to those many snappers who post pictures of homeless people than to those posting pictures of nudes. I think you've singled out, as an ethical matter, the nude and sexuality and you haven't made a good case for doing so.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, this thread was about photographing nudes, a particular subset of them. It was not about homeless people, or I would be talking about issues related to shooting homeless people.</p>

<p>I have already communicated to you via return e-mail ( a couple of days ago) that I believe that you are correct that there are many topics of photography where "know thyself" would seem to be relevant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think you've singled out, as an ethical matter, the nude and sexuality and you haven't made a good case for doing so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, Fred, this thread is about the nude, sexuality, challenges to social mores, and much else related to the original question. I do not feel that any justification is needed for "singling out" the "nude and sexuality" in a thread about nudity and sexuality.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"I do not feel that any justification is needed for 'singling out' the 'nude and sexuality' in a thread about nudity and sexuality."</p>

<p>Right. No justification is needed for singling out the nude in a thread about the nude. The justification I seek is for your emphasis on the <i>ethics</i> of it. You just said "knowing thyself" seems <em>nowhere more relevant</em> than regarding the nude. That's what needs justification. I say there are many more relevant places for ethics to come in. Homelessness is merely one example of many I thought of where ethics is more relevant than it is regarding nudity. In other words, I think you are overemphasizing the ethics of nudes as compared to ethics of other genres of photography. Yes, we are discussing nudes here. But YOU said: "NOWHERE MORE RELEVANT." That, for me, is the crux of the problem with your whole approach to this thread.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, first let me respond once more to the issue of, say, shooting either the homeless or those who might be. Here is a thread where the issues you raise would be relevant. (One of mine is in here as well, and one could challenge the ethics and motives of posting it--as did one of my colleagues where I teach, at an African-American college.)</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00TYuE</p>

<p>As for your second claim:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You just said "knowing thyself" seems <em>nowhere more relevant</em> than regarding the nude. That's what needs justification. I say there are many more relevant places for ethics to come in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I think that there are ethical issues in all branches of photography. I do not feel the need to defend any claim that issues related to nudity and sexuality are as compelling as other issues. I did not, for the record, say "<em>more</em> compelling."</p>

<p>The issue that you raise would be a good topic for another thread. Why don't you post it as a question on another thread?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>And I did not suggest you said the ethical issues regarding nudes are "more compelling." I simply said I disagree that they are "nowhere more compelling" than with the nude. The ethics of photography are in MANY places, I believe, MORE compelling than with the nude.</p>

<p>I don't think this needs to be taken up in a different thread. It's very much about THIS thread and about how you've approached it.</p>

<p>The ethics of shooting homeless becomes completely relevant when you make a statement like ethics are NOWHERE MORE RELEVANT than with the nude. Because, I think, ethics are MUCH MORE relevant to homeless photos than to nude photos. The example is not meant to sidetrack the thread and discuss homelessness. It's meant to give you a counterexample to your thinking about the ethics of the nude. It's meant to suggest that the ethical aspects underlying your entire approach to this thread should be considered by you. You have taken the importance of those ethical aspects as a given. It's worth considering that the ethical aspects of nude photography are not as significant as you are making them out to be.</p>

<p>In my mind, it's the very reason why we in the U.S. censor nudity on TV and in mainstream films and not violence. Because we think of nudity as a significant ethical matter and not much else. When our churches talk about morality, they are more often talking of nudity and sexuality than actual important and more relevant moral matters. That's why they worry about who marries whom instead of who goes hungry on the streets and gets killed in wars. The churchgoers (the ones shouting loudest about morality) vote for the guys who will repress others' sexuality and will forget to consider that these same guys will take us into needless wars and cut funding for needed social programs, all because they're focused on the ETHICS of nudity and sexuality, to the exclusion of MANY MORE IMPORTANT ethical matters.</p>

[jtk]

<p>The serpent in Genesis draws a couple's attention to nudity, shame follows, and they are forced to relocate to Columbus, OH.</p>

<p> "Admit" seems most commonly to imply something about guilt. Who is it, after all, that "admits?" </p>

<p>Adam and Eve tried to blame the serpent, but the Landlord caught them with their pants down. Was this news to him? </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I think, ethics are MUCH MORE relevant to homeless photos than to nude photos. The example is not meant to sidetrack the thread and discuss homelessness.It's meant to suggest that the ethical aspects underlying your entire approach to this thread should be considered by you. You have taken the importance of those ethical aspects as a given. It's worth considering that the ethical aspects of nude photography are not as significant as you are making them out to be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's also worth considering, Fred, that the ethical aspects of nude photography are a lot more significant than <em>you</em> are making them out to be--which is not at all to diminish the significance of the issues that you have raised.</p>

<p>This is a good topic. Do you want to discuss it here?</p>

<p>Very well. It's "out there." Let's see who bites. I still say that it would be better treated as a separate thread, if only to get more attention to issues that we both think are important.</p>

<p>I am not a censorial type, for the record. I am not a prude. I just happen to think that sexuality is a great good that goes far beyond mere pleasure into the realm of the sacred. Apparently we disagree, and my "approach" <em>qua </em> treating it as something that is worthy of being called "sacred" bothers you.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, I think that I recall that from your earlier posts that all references to the idea of the "sacred" bother you--not just those having to do with nudity and sexuality.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Admit" seems most commonly to imply something about guilt. Who is it, after all, that "admits?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, most words <strong><em>admit </em> </strong> of more than one interpretation and nuance of meaning, depending on context. I was not thinking about issues of guilt when I used the term "admit" in the post (by me) which apparently troubles you.</p>

<p>Nor was I doing so in the bold-faced word in the immediately preceding paragraph (in case you missed it).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>" I think that I recall that from your earlier posts that all references to the idea of the 'sacred' bother you."</p>

<p>Yes, they do. So? The question I raised is why you think ethics are "nowhere more compelling" in photography than relating to the nude. Homeless is an example I put on the table. War is an example I then added. You haven't answered my question. Why is ethics regarding homelessness and war not more compelling than ethics regarding nudity?</p>