The Power and the Glory

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

[A]s a teacher, I think you had better find more suitable reference photography and be less hurried and more specific in your posts. Lead by example, right?

</blockquote>

You're dead on, Martin. It's sloppy, hurried work (if work it be). In addition, there are those who think that I should not be looking at nudes in the first place. Bad example, and all that. . . .

We actually are what you say--but a little more: we think about it more.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

And the dancer photographed on white seamless hardly questions [social] mores unless you are particularly fascinated with pubic hair.

</blockquote>

I love it, Gary. In fact, I think that we need to form a new society, or at least get rich off a new bumper sticker: SAVE THE PUBIC HAIR.

Ask Forrest Gump. . . .

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

While we are on the subject, Gary, I think that that little black triangle has its uses, as if it were a signpost planted there by God himself (herself?) pointing downward as if to say, "Down here, fool. HERE!"

On this hangs the future of the human race.

God must be a photographer. The leading lines are just too good in that part of the world.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 12, 2009

I find a big ol' erection a lot more leading than a patch of pubic hair, but that's just me :)

An interesting philosophical/sociological question would be why it's a room full of men talking about nudes of women. Why were no nudes of men singled out, especially given that we were meant to be discussing more than sex? And why are no women participating? (Although, to be fair, few women participate in the Philosophy discussions ever.)

Here's my personal take on what would motivate me to shoot public nudity, because I've done it and thought about it.

I have a couple of pics of a female protester on Haight Street, topless, holding signs about saving trees and doing cartwheels with a policeman writing her out a ticket and a crowd forming. The nudity seemed so second-nature and non-threatening, no one seemed to be in titillation mode. It seemed political and innocent. I just never felt I got a decent shot of it, though any I would have posted would have been "ironic" and cute, just not very good photographs.

I have one in my portfolio of a middle-aged guy in kind of a classic pose on a staircase in a pretty public place, but it's by a beach so it was relatively unthreatening. I was doing a portrait and found a good environment. I did it more as a nude study and not with a whole lot of intention at the time as to what the result would be. I certainly was not trying to make a statement about public nudity, nor did anyone actually read it that way. Most saw it for what it was, a male nude on a staircase.

I have talked about doing more blatant publicly nude shots. I talked about it with exhibitionists. And I have a voyeur streak in me that I am often exploring with my photographs. I have not done this type of photo yet because the right situation hasn't yet presented itself and I haven't yet been moved to make it happen. When I do, I will gladly admit to the titillation factor that will be involved. How heterosexual men will respond to that, I don't know, but the fact that I will hope to be as genuine as possible about the voyeurism/titillation factor for me and for the subject should hopefully translate significantly to any viewer, whether attracted to men sexually or not. One can recognize titillation and voyeurism without being titillated or turned on by voyeuristic situations.

I think I get into trouble when I head out with the intention of making a philosophical statement, pushing a certain button, with the overt intention of being "edgy," etc. I'm better if I just feel my way as I go and am genuine with what I am doing. That doesn't always mean natural. I can be very artificial. As I said, I can create illusions and set up poses and situations, but they are usually genuinely felt, at least those that result in good photos are. I am a philosopher by nature, so I tend to approach the world as one. That naturally informs my photographing. It's kind of in the background just like being gay is regarding many of my photos. Just like my liberal politics likely inform how I approach the world, nudity and sex in particular.

I think titillation with nudity is fine, if it's recognized and played with (no pun intended). It's when the audience is titillated and the photographer didn't know or didn't admit he was titillating that a problem of authenticity and intention ensues. It can be acknowledged, it can be harnessed, it can even be denied by doing a photo that somehow throws the titillation up in our face. But if it's just titillation, plain and simple, I'd rather watch porn than seek it out in the dark late-night hours of the nudes section of PN.

I think shocking with nudity is also fine, but rarely done well. Just like I think sunsets are rarely done well.

Nudity is a hot button. And when hot buttons are used because they are hot buttons it is sometimes hard to express something genuine, because the hot button is being relied on to do the expressing. When the genre is used personally and expressively, it is a whole other story.

fate_faith_change_chains · May 12, 2009

The most obvious / strong example of public nudity, meaning both women and man, is of course <a href="http://www.spencertunick.com/">Spencer Tunick</a>. I think his photographs transcend ' the nude ', and are more about identity and the loss of it than anything else....just like some pretty sunset shots can transcend the notion of ' a pretty sunset '.

I think one of the most transcendent and strong female nude photography was done by what most would consider a great landscape photographer : Edward Weston. His nudes where fragile yet unbreakable. There was a man who actually understood ( wanted to understand ) the subjects he photographed, but first like a photographer and only secondly as a man. A quality I don't sense in any of the photography in the links provided in the original post.

dougityb · May 12, 2009

I'm glad I responded to your original question in the beginning, Lannie, because the discussion is way out of my league now. You guys are all old enough to remember the Maidenform Bra campaign that featured a woman in public in her bra. The tagline was "I dreamed I was [doing this or that just like I would everyday but in my dream I was] in my maidenform bra". There aren't that many examples online, but here are a couple. <a href="http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22262/38533">http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22262/38533</a> That campaign lasted 50 years, I read, which is a long time to drive an advertisement. I think they tapped into what we're talking about. A female acquaintance once commented about the ads, stating how the ads appealed to a fantasy of hers to be open and free. I'm pretty sure, if it weren't illegal to make photos of nudes in public places, there would be more of them. If it were legalized today, I'd be out shooting one tomorrow, or as soon as I could book someone willing to do it, money notwithstanding. I think there are plenty of people, male and female, photographers and models, who would be willing to orchestrate a carefully planned 10 second full nudity shot in a public place if there were little to no risk of being arrested. Isn't there an internationally known artist who stages mass gatherings of nudes? Like hundreds of people, all nude, and in a large public place; he makes the photo and then every one scrambles for their clothes and scampers off? Perhaps speaking for myself, part of the "shame" I refer to is more a realization that my body was abundantly more beautiful at a younger age; and so it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that I, as one example, cover myself not so much out of a shame derived from religion, or culture, but simply out of comparison. Was it Martin, who mentioned, if I may paraphrase, that sex is behind it our fascination? I think there's a point there, but I don't take the comment to mean sexual activity, or what we might think of as "horniness", but rather to mean that many of our interests are motivated by subconscious preferences based on procreational behavior, such as preferring attractive nudes over farm tractors since we are biologically predisposed to do so because we can't reproduce with farm tractors, no matter how hard we may try.

dougityb · May 12, 2009

Spencer Tunik. That's the one. I was composing my comment while Phylo was posting it.

Norma Desmond · May 12, 2009

If my subconscious preferences are based on procreational behavior, both me and the human race are in trouble. But I vow to keep trying to reproduce with other men instead of farm tractors until I get it right :)

dougityb · May 12, 2009

I'm sure there's a woman out there who can make you straight, Fred! :-D

I would imagine, though, that you would prefer nudes of lithe young, rather than wrinkled old, but I am an amateur in this area, and am only babbling what I remember from various discovery channel specials.

gdw · May 12, 2009

Fred, having been raised in the country I can assure you that is a good choice.

Lannie, I appreciate your candor and do hope that although we seem somewhat apart in our thinking on this issue that we can remain respectfully disagreeable. You are absolutely correct. I am a very literal person. I desire to see the world simply without subterfuge. Just take it as it is. I remake the world enough in my photography. All photographers snap into reality their on flat little worlds. I think that is why we do it.

I do not address nudes often. The last nude photography I was involved with, I was the nude. Never the less I would love to shoot nudes, both male and female because I feel that the human body is so totally beautiful in not only appearance but also in form and function. I don't for a few very simple reasons. I do not know that I have anything new or unique to say, I would only ape what has gone before or fall prey to the pull of sexuality. The world doesn’t need any more of that, it's well supplied.

One poster mentioned the Weston nudes. Weston had the ability to step away from the adolescent in us all (and believe me Weston was adolescent when it came to women) and capture the image as pure beauty of form often relating the nude to other beautiful forms. After better than a half century of looking at photographs of nudes I believe that there are very, very few men, or women, that can do that.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with being adolescent when it comes to nudes. It is simply our innate nature and a very necessary part of our nature. What bothers me personally about the vast majority of nudes is that they are too often simply creations of our baser side. As I have called it before, a man's fantasy written on the body of a woman. To a significant degree it saddens me because they are so often disrespectful of womanhood. I am also saddened that so many women feel compelled to join in and become what I before called puppets in the game.

I am always thrilled when I come across a nude on the forum that breaks that mold. Frankly I enjoy the postings of male nudes more frequently for a number of reasons; they are rare, they have not been as over exposed (no pun intended) and truthfully I can relate to the subject because I share at least some of the same nature with the subject. I have been nude in a variety of circumstances. It also gets past the titillation factor, not eliminates, but gets past it.

A very long time ago, probably sixties but most likely fifties, I came across a photograph in one of the monthly photo mags that fascinates me to this day. And I believe to a great degree it has much of what you are talking about. It was a photograph of a young black man, twenties, good average build. He was walking down a public street, it seems like in Washington DC, that as I recall had a park like background at least park benches lining the sidewalk. He was totally nude (no stilettos). His trousers were neatly draped over one arm like a waiters towel and he was walking very confidently, seemingly with purpose, toward the camera and was just about to pass by the camera at the time of exposure. The positioning of the trousers at the time of exposure obscured his private area but it was clear that was not the view that those around him received. Also on the street were a number of well dressed business men and two or three matronly ladies. He did not strike me as vulnerable but rather confident, assured, at total peace with the world. There was no sense of swagger or intended shock factor, just simply walking down the street as you or I would do but undressed. It was as if he had just arrived from some place in Africa where nudity was a way of life. However, the photograph was not any more about the young man than it was about the reactions of those around him. The reactions were surprisingly very mild, no one covering their eyes, no one in great shock, although no one was missing a peek. Most seemed willing to accept the young man and let him go on his way. Needless to say it was an extremely fascinating photographic capture. That is an example of a photograph of a nude in public that I can enjoy. It was truth, not fantasy, not made up or fabricated, and you knew it from the photograph.

I have seen similar photographs of both men and women, especially during the most interesting seventies when I was gallivanting about sans skivvies but none has had the strength of the young man and his trousers. And I do not believe that anyone, man or woman, would have seen that photograph as titillating because it was so much more, a much stronger image than if it had been about titillation.

There is a parade some place in the Seattle area that the participants bike nude through the center of town. That is fascinating. Men, women, young, old with their naked bodies painted, all casually commingling with the dressed. I don't know that I have ever seen a really fascinating photograph of the event, but still, it seems to hold much possibility. I am personally with the poster that suggested he does not appear nude in public out of respect not shame. At seventy, I get his point.

joe_jackson4 · May 12, 2009

LOL, well, whatever wets yer breezy "philosophical" weasel, eh...? :)

Norma Desmond · May 12, 2009

Doug--

"I'm sure there's a woman out there who can make you straight, Fred! :-D"

You don't know the half of it!

"I would imagine, though, that you would prefer nudes of lithe young, rather than wrinkled old,"

Check out my portfolio sometime. You may be surprised. Which is not to say that when I flip through GQ I don't stop to appreciate what's offered and when I look at porn on the internet, I don't appreciate the bodies of younger men than myself.

iliafarniev · May 12, 2009

Can there be a perl of blessing in residues of sin ?

The ansver, off caurse, is yes. Where else would buger hide it ?

But how about common folly in this case?

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

Well, now you guys are opening up as I had hoped you would. I never presumed that my opinions or my examples should drive the discussion--or would for very long. I especially appreciate those of you, such as Gary, who pour out their hearts and souls in surprising ways.

Yes, Doug, I remember Maidenform ads, although I am not sure that I ever saw one of their products "in use," shall we say.

As for cultural differences between the U.S. and other places, consider this one by Jana Vanourkova. There's power in this one for me--and I'm straight. That is one reason that I know that my own fascination with the topic is not merely sexual:

http://www.photo.net/photo/4644505

Another one that I find powerful for very different reasons is indeed a very revealing shot of a woman. Even here, there is something besides mere lust that drives me to want to see this photo over and over. I personally think that it has something to do with her apparent sense of being comfortable with her body, even as she is not in a comfortable pose. Be advised that some would consider this one to be graphic at the size shown below, but to me she is as pure as the driven snow--and I likewise feel pure when viewing it, regardless of what others might think about my motives:

http://www.photo.net/photo/6448493&size=lg

Indeed, it is this sense of purity in such a pose that is part of the "power and glory" of the public nude, even if this one, too, was not shot in public.

Jana's photo, by comparison, is very public indeed, but it, too, seems to have a sense of innocence, not only on her part, but on the part of the persons captured (not models: her shot was a candid).

I also think that part of the "power and glory" is the sense that we are indeed in search of lost innocence, and I also believe that we are often shocked that we find it in places (or in photos) where we least expect it.

We grow tired of hypocrisy. The simple but revealing nude is many things, but it is never, ever a manifestation of hypocrisy, in my opinion.

--Lannie

iliafarniev · May 12, 2009

I think we are better off assuming in this joint nobody is innocent.

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

Doug, I skimmed across the entire thread so quickly when I came back to it that I did not click on the link you provided. I remembered the Maidenform ads in general and so thought that I remembered the specifics of them. Imagine my shock upon seeing them again. Let me post your link again in case anyone else missed it:

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22262/38533" target="_blank">http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22262/38533</a>

The ads in the link are wonderful in their own way. On the one hand, they are the ultimate manifestation of that archetypical canard of cynicism: sex sells. On the other hand, they are really quite beautiful and probably capture the female imagination as strongly as they do the male imagination, albeit in different ways.

In any case, they are loaded with deep Freudian implications, no doubt, and I am astonished in retrospect that a country as conservative as this would have let the FCC approve such ads. No, the bras were not skimpy and thus did not show much skin, but they raised a lot of interesting and provocative--even suggestive--questions, especially for the time.

I will say this to all the cynics who think that testosterone drives all such inquiries as this: why are we working so hard on this when we could be at ATK Hairy (or Oriental, or whatever) actually looking at bodies, without having to work so hard? There are power and glory not merely in the public qua innocent nude, but also in the philosophical questions that inevitably emerge when we start thinking seriously about the source of both our hangups and our ideals on such matters.

These are powerfully motivating issues, that is, or else we should not, would not agonize over them so much. We would just look at pictures, or find ourselves a real, live partner and get on with it. With Youporn.com just a few clicks away, who needs all this? The answer, I think, is that we all do. We are both blessed and cursed as human beings with reflexive rationality. We reflect, and see ourselves from outside, as it were. We are self-conscious. We are not like dogs coupling in the street. We ask ourselves whether we ought to want what we want. We are, as someone has said, "the only animal to have desires about desires." We have the capacity for self-restraint, are not mere creatures of instinct, and we usually do restrain ourselves pretty well, within reason. When we do not, we are not pleased with ourselves.

Ultimately, I think that we seek the divine in sexuality, whether it can be found there or not, and I personally think that it can--but it cannot be found in the cheaper manifestations of eroticism and lust. What we seek is meaning, both in relationships and in habits that define our character, not to mention in answers to questions such as those raised here--questions that go way beyond my own initial question. We want answers, but we are still not sure what the questions are. We are confused, and yet we are still seek purpose and meaning in all things that we do. We are a mess as a race, the human race, but we are also aspiring to be better than we are. We are puzzles, even to ourselves.

On a lighter note (but sometimes still, oh, so profound), here are the nudes of Robert McCall. Few if any are public, but one cannot but view them and read his comments without gaining some insights on the questions at hand:

http://www.entrenousphoto.com/galleryindex.html

This to me is a great thread, thanks to the contributors. I'm glad that I started it, although I shall not have the last word on a single topic in it.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

I think we are better off assuming in this joint nobody is innocent.

</blockquote>

Of course we are not innocent, Ilia. We seek lost innocence. We have got to get ourselves back to the Garden, or so "Woodstock" (the song) told us. I believe it, but I doubt that we shall find it in the rain and mud..

--Lannie

briangrossman · May 12, 2009

The public aspect of my nude work, where it is significant to the piece, is about freedom. Sometimes the public aspect is irrelevant, such as in my cemetery nudes, which are intended as affirmations of life. My work is not intended to be sexual. Rather, expressing the freedom to be nude is a challenge to what i perceive as a fundamental perversion of values in our society wherein images of violence are glorified and tolerated and available to children virtually without restriction whereas public nudity is shunned and vilified. It is a prudish and adolescent mind which cannot separate nudity from sexuality, and it is this mindset which is responsible for the taboo against public nudity, at least in the united states. i seek to challenge this mindset in those of my images where the public aspect of the nude is prominent.

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

God bless you for showing up, Brian! I invited John Peri, Beepy, and Jim Phelps, too, but so far you are the first to come and explain your photos--and your quest, which is a quest worthy of Jason and the Argonauts, a true odyssey into psychological space.

--Lannie

iliafarniev · May 12, 2009

¨We seek lost innocence. ¨

Fundamentally disagree with this suggestion. People dont seek innocence but satisfaction of their desires in all perversity they can master until they realise this way does not lead anywhere ultimatelly.

The freedom word sounds nice but wouldnt it be better to use word liberation instead -question mark.

Landrum Kelly · May 12, 2009

"We seek lost innocence."

Fundamentally disagree with this suggestion. People dont seek innocence but satisfaction of their desires in all perversity they can master until they realise this way does not lead anywhere ultimatelly.

</blockquote>

At which point they/we do what, Ilia, if not seek the "restoration of their souls," "turning over a new leaf," or some other conception of what if not the quest for the fresh start--pure once again?

Man, you are the cynic tonight.

--Lannie

jtk · May 13, 2009

IMO there's little weight to this discussion. Its main relevance is to a chasing-the-tail, intentionally self-deceptive game... the anthethis of the aspirations of most photographers...who do seem (IMO) to be interested more in awareness than in theological limitation.

Ilia brought a breath of fresh air...relief, honesty, not cynicism.

iliafarniev · May 13, 2009

Good question, Landrum. Leave it to your meditations.

1. restoration of souls questionably imply there are souls

2. `turning over a new leaf` is a metaphor I suppose

3. from the comforts of self indulgence simple true have got to be seen as something else

Norma Desmond · May 13, 2009

sorry, gotta think more about what I was going to say, if anything.

Landrum Kelly · May 13, 2009

It is a prudish and adolescent mind which cannot separate nudity from sexuality, and it is this mindset which is responsible for the taboo against public nudity, at least in the united states. i seek to challenge this mindset in those of my images where the public aspect of the nude is prominent.

</blockquote>

Well said, Brian. Although I have dabbled here in the theological implications of all this (obviously not too effectively in terms of the responses I have received--or failed to), there is that other issue of social order, rules, and taboos, which you claim (and I believe) to be your real purpose.

I have long thought that the public nude was less about sexuality and titillation and more about an affirmation of freedom, not only moral freedom but political freedom. Some might see that as hypocritical or self-deceptive. I do not. In other words, I see the public nude as fundamentally a challenge to an oppressive and authoritarian moral and legal order, such as we have in the United States where issues of nudity are concerned. The most oppressive social orders--those of Hitler, Franco and Stalin--have invariably tried to enforce a puritanical code, and by the most brutal means, and (as in Franco's case) often by invoking religious authority as an ally in the struggle. Such regimes are also typically the most blatantly homophobic in the worst sense: Franco's pogrom against gay intellectuals (the death of Garcia Lorca being the most widely publicized, but only the tip of a very large iceberg of cold repression), on the one hand, and Hitler's classification of gays as one of the groups that must be wiped out in order for the "master race" to come to its ascendancy.

Regardless of who is doing the challenge, or the style of their photography, I think that it is a worthy challenge. John Peri's playfulness takes a lot of hits, but there is more profundity in his play than in most pixel-peeping or serious navel gazing. In some ways, I like his "out-takes" better than his "regular" photography that he has traditionally put up for critique--and perhaps his own unique brand of "street photography" best of all:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=671614

Then there is Pat Thielen's work, which moves seamlessly between nature and at least the outskirts of civilization, what he calls the "urban environment," but which in fact is merely the periphery of such civilization, not unlike Brian's shots of rail yards and cemeteries:

http://www.axolotyl-studios.com/figure_in_the_urbanized_landscap.html

There is indeed a serious anti-authoritarian component and challenge to all this, whether done playfully (Peri) or more self-consciously seriously (Thielen). As a political theorist I find this challenge to authoritarianism very important. My guess is that the internet will likely bring it down in the United States. Whether it will also simply lower our standards in the process is another question, but one's standards are for oneself to maintain, in any case--not for society or its laws and mores.

--Lannie (card-carrying member of the ACLU)

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