The Power and the Glory

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Is this play or a serious challenge to the social order?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8582182</p>

<p>Well, it is, in my opinion, arguably both, regardless of what might or might not have been John's motives for doing it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Whether this one by Robert McCall is a "public nude" is debatable, but the criticism of a rather elaborate social ritual is obvious enough:</p>

<p>http://www.entrenousphoto.com/theimportanceofetiquette.html</p>

<p>What I also like about this one is its critique of a relic of undue deference to authority: curtsying to the queen, for example.</p>

<p>(The Free Online Dictionary defines curtsying as "a woman's formal gesture of respect made by bending the knees and bowing the head." Ughh!!)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[briangrossman]

<p>Lannie: thank you for taking the time to give thoughtful consideration to this topic. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you for inspiring me to try, Brian.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Lately, I've been lurking on this forum, but feel compelled to break through the thinning ice and get in trouble on this one.</p>

<p> Ilia, Gary and Fred, I find myself mostly in agreement with you.</p>

<p>Wow, 23 out of 52 responses in this thread are by the OP. </p>

<p> The nude, unlike a lot of other subjects, except maybe food photography, (and some Maslovian needs) affects the viewer's autonomic response system. The "public nude" (and, yes, some of LK's examples weren't public except in his fantasies) has to do with recontextualization. It's like Rousseau's red couch, out of a living room or an office. The public nude breaks out of the indoors, which since the Abrahamic religions has been the feminine domain and enters the male-controlled exterior. Any energy there issues from the fusion of disparate subjects/context, and the implicit disruption of the theo- & socio-logical orders. The nude human form in the dystopiary of sterile, brutally functional, industrial, cosmopolitan and urban settings remind us of, as Robert Adams calls it, what we bought. Artistically, it is close to clubbing baby seals, or showing yet another ominous smokestack clouding an idyllic landscape.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>What's this? A literate critique?! I'm honored, Luis, by your criticism, harsh though it may be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Artistically, it is close to clubbing baby seals, or showing yet another ominous smokestack clouding an idyllic landscape.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I prefer the metaphor of daisies growing out of cracks in the sidewalk, Luis. Yet, if I had not to deal with metaphors, I would prefer to put the nude literally back in the jungle, where fantasies (both Rousseau's and mine) are rightly called "dreams."</p>

<p>Since going back to the jungle qua Garden is not an option, however, I think that we shall have to bring the female nude out of the patriarchal tutelage of the legacy of Abraham, and she may dress as she wishes, or not all, as she pleases--wherever she damn well pleases.</p>

<p>It was that cloistered interior that was male-created and male-dominated, Luis. It is not pretty on the outside, in post-industrial society, but one may at least try to survive in the interstices, whether one be male or female.</p>

<p>As for the frequency of posts, yes, it is a bit like defending a thesis before a committee. The trick is to keep moving when the cheap shot comes--but to manage to get it said (whatever it is) rather than to try to refute one's detractors and thereby lose one's focus.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"It is a prudish and adolescent mind which cannot separate nudity from sexuality"</p>

<p>I think there is a lot of prudishness and adolescence in the way many of us relate to and treat both nudity and sexuality. But there is a relationship between nudity and sexuality that is worth not trying to deny. Which doesn't mean anyone is bound to explore it in photos but also doesn't mean that relationship can't be genuinely dealt with in photos. I usually have sex in the nude (though not always) and so it seems reasonable to me that I would feel an intimate relationship between the two. And that fact doesn't mean I have to be either prudish or adolescent about that relationship. I freely admit to times of falling prey to the latter, rarely the former. There is not a causal relationship between nudity and sex though sometimes, honestly, there seems to be. I'm neither afraid of admitting that nor would I be afraid of exposing it (this time, pun intended) photographically.</p>

<p>I think nudes can be studies of form, studies of beauty, transcendently expressed, or quite down to Earth. For me, nudity is not pure. I'm not sure anything is. So I'm not invested in separating it from its physical, cultural, sexual, and even spiritual aspects. One photographer may choose to explore one aspect while another explores something else. For me, the measure of the photograph is what it shows me in addition to being merely a nude, public or private.</p>

<p>The fact of its being a public nude, in itself, is of consequence much the same way a war photo tends to have a certain type of effect. But what I lay at the doorstep of the photographer is not so much about the subject he chooses but about the way he handles and presents that subject. I continue to think there's been some conflation of what the photographer offers<em> in</em> these shots and what the combination of subject matter and philosophical minds offers <em>to</em> these shots.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>A CLARIFICATION</strong></p>

<p>I did not, of course, offer a thesis at the outset of this thread. I asked a question:</p>

<p><strong>How does one explain the power of what I can only call the "public nude"?</strong></p>

<p>If I were to offer a thesis by way of trying to answer the question, however, it would also be similar to the statements that I made<strong> </strong> at the outset, that<strong> the public nude does not derive its power from traditional aesthetic considerations, but from its challenge to the public order. </strong> The public nude, that is, a challenge to the social mores and even the political order of society--the power structure of society.<strong><br /> </strong></p>

<p>It is quite obvious from the responses received so far, however, that many persons do not feel the power of the public nude, or, if they do, they experience or interpret that power in negative terms<strong>--</strong> as something perverse, or as something which brings out something in us that is perverse or dangerous.<strong> </strong> For all I know they might be correct.<strong> </strong> The question as I offered it is ultimately a psychological one, and I have no special credentials or insights for trying to answer it.</p>

<p>Since I cannot answer my own question and have no basis for offering a firm thesis that I can defend, I am now going to back off and see if anyone can or will take the struggle from here.<strong> </strong> If not, then the thread can finally die. It was on life support from the beginning anyway.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>P.S.: I cross-threaded you on my response, Fred, but I will let it go, except to say that your claim that<strong> </strong> "nudity is not pure" goes to the heart of the even more fundamental question of the morality of nudity in general in social situations (including artistic portrayals). The question remains: is it somehow impure? I will leave the question for others to answer. I finally have to concede that I know nothing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>It is impure, for me, in the sense that it cannot be essentialized to the exclusion of its attending associations, contexts, and cultural understandings. It is not impure, for me, in a judgmental sense.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Nowt wrong with a bit of muff'n'stuff, obviously, but with female nudie pics I'm firmly in the "no sphincter, no cigar" camp... Doesn't really matter about the background scenery, TBH. Tennis courts, poolside recliners, sandy beaches, pool tables, office desks...? Not important... Just show me the ringpiece...</p>

[JPPhoto1664880217]

<p>

<p>The question posed, "why are these images so powerful", seems to be a strong function of location. In places where nudity is more accepted, like Europe, the images are not nearly as powerful as they are in the Southeastern United States.<br />In places like Europe, the images have very little "shock appeal" and therefore must be evaluated on either their erotic or artistic merits. In the southeastern United States, particularly in the rural areas, the "public nude" has a great deal of "shock appeal". This causes both the erotic and artistic merits to be "glossed over". It is safe to say that the higher the "shock appeal", the more the image challenges the local social norms. This is probably strongly correlated with the overall attitude to both nudity and sex.<br />On a different level, it is interesting to look at the "public nude" from the model’s perspective. Most, if not all, of the nude models I have worked with have posed nude in "public". This ranges from highly organized group figure shoots held at national forests in California to walking nude through a local supermarket. Both are obvious displays of exhibitionism. From both the photographer’s and the model’s perspective, in these situations, she is the center of attention, where she and she alone, is the most beautiful object in the "room".<br />Regarding the comment on vulnerability, the models I have worked with never seem vulnerable to me. I do make every effort not to put them in a position of vulnerability, because I want more of a strong athletic, aesthetic look (i.e. like an Amazon)<br />On a more artistic note, while the "public nude" is an extremely narrative topic, it normally has a significant amount of visual tension because the surroundings are so important to the narrative. This is particularly true when other people are shown in the image. The facial expressions of these other people almost always draw the viewer’s eye. This tends to make for an interesting image.<br />In summary, the underlying reaction to the "public nude" is probably the result of women being fundamentally exhibitionist and men being fundamentally voyeurs. The reaction is amplified by the local social norms, which range from mild (in Europe and parts of Asia) to very strong (in the Southeastern United States).</p>

<p>my 2 cents worth</p>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Jim--</p>

<p>Considerations of cultural context and photographic environment (as you say, "surroundings") seem so relevant here. It's why unqualified or objective statements about so many of these matters don't often hold true.</p>

<p>I'd love to hear from some models, who might pick up on your points from the model's perspective, because that has been lacking, though I'm not sure just how much it would inform the photograph itself and how the photograph is perceived by the viewer.</p>

<p>As far as . . .</p>

<p>"women being fundamentally exhibitionist and men being fundamentally voyeurs"</p>

<p>. . . can you cite research, studies, or data supporting such a claim?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[LK] "I prefer the metaphor of daisies growing out of cracks in the sidewalk, Luis."</p>

<p> Lannie, I'm not going to use the word "crack" when discussing nudes. :-)</p>

<p> Fred, there's reams of papers, books, etc on the subject of the Male Gaze, relational asymmetries, dominance, objectification, depersonalization, etc., in feminist literature. This comment by Jim is almost a textbook example: "... is the most beautiful object in the "room". Not person, woman, but "object". That means he's comparing her to decorative displays, vegetables, and other objects (women). Look up Laura Mulvey, Berger, Haskell, Rosen and others from second wave feminism.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>This comment by Jim is almost a textbook example: "... is the most beautiful object in the "room". Not person, woman, but "object". That means he's comparing her to decorative displays, vegetables, and other objects (women).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Luis, as Jim's defense attorney, I have to say that I was wondering when the old hackneyed objectification objection was going to raise its head--and here it is coming from you.</p>

<p>John Peri warned me that it would be coming--just this morning--and pointed out that it was precisely because of claims like that that he would just as soon rather have some fun doing something, almost anything, else besides putting in an appearance on this thread.</p>

<p>From where I sit, I see women very often enjoying being looked at. As my own friend says, rather modestly, "If you're a woman, you get used to being looked at."</p>

<p>Getting used to it is one thing. Liking it is quite another, but take a look at this one, for example--especially that last (sixth) frame:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8947039&size=lg</p>

<p>Nor does it appear to me that John has to kidnap them or bribe them to come up to his place to take their clothes off. I'm not blaming them. It's in their nature. The harder task for John, I think, would be keeping them clothed. I suspect that the same is true for Jim. As a professor, I have seen glitter-covered panties beaming at me from the back row of the class room--when I was sixty years of age. Sometimes white just isn't bright enough.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, guys, but men don't do things like that, and we wouldn't even if we wore skirts and panties. We keep trying to tell you, but you don't listen: they are different from us, really, really different!</p>

<p>The defense rests.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JPPhoto1664880217]

<p>When I use the word "object" I mean an "art object", like a painting or a sculpture, an object of beauty that brings the viewer pleasure. In these circumstances, both the model and the photographer are attempting to create something of beauty. <br />This has been going on in the art world for hundreds of years, see for example, Goya's "La Maja Desnuda". The "public nude" concept is also very present in the art world, see for example, works by Botticelli (any one of the versions of Venus), or Raphael ("Three Graces" for instance).<br />The major difference today is that a camera (digital or film) can be used to record the image. This allows much less post idealization of the model than does painting or sculpture. Therefore, it is much more important how the model actually looks and how she poses. The model's feeling about herself is ALWAYS reflected in the pose. That is why it is so important for her to know she IS the most beautiful object of art in the "room".</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Lannie, please don't fulfill your cliche'd expectations at my expense. I did _not_ raise the "object" thing. Jim did. I simply quoted him. He needs no defense, because he is not under attack, at least not by me, and not from his own perceptions. If he wants to refer to his models as "objects", that's his prerogative, and it is an undeniable fact that he did.</p>

<p> No one but you mentioned anything about the motivation of his models. Why did you feel compelled to inform us that Jim's models are doing what they do of their own free will?</p>

<p> Those Humbert Humbert fantasies of glitter-pantied Dolores Haze clones that you sincerely believe are putting on a show just for you are slightly more interesting.</p>

<p>Ps. Most of us realized the difference between men and women long ago, but thanks for the reminder (?).</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"men don't do things like that"</p>

<p>Hold the phone. Come on, Lannie. Really? Can you allow for the possibility that you're just not predisposed to noticing all the young guys sitting next to the glitter-covered panty-wearing young women whose Calvin Klein or 2(x)1st briefs are exposed because their pants are halfway down their behinds? And I guess you've never read the news items about men exposing themselves to women and children in the park. You've obviously never been to Castro Street or Christopher Street or a Gay Pride Parade with millions of men showing bulges in their crotches that would stop a clock. How 'bout one of the muscle beaches in Los Angeles? And I'm pretty sure you've never placed an ad on craigslist for nude male models and had married heterosexual guys come to your studio, titillated by the thought of showing off for the camera and of doing it behind their wife's back. You've also never met a guy who wears a skirt or panties. Lannie, you gotta get out more!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Those Humbert Humbert fantasies of glitter-pantied Dolores Haze clones that you sincerely believe are putting on a show just for you are slightly more interesting. --Luis G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sonny, I know when I am being flashed. I can read eyes--and much else, and have had to as a mode of survival since I started university teaching in 1974.</p>

<p>Now you have impugned my integrity as well as Jim's. Is there no end to the viciousness that parades as "philosophy" on this forum?</p>

<p>I cannot say that I was not warned. When you guys run out of rational argument, you resort to <em>ad hominem </em> attacks. It is the only style of "argumentation" that you know.</p>

<p>There is no philosophy here. I'm outta here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"men don't do things like that" --Fred Goldsmith</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I was partly joking, but only partly, when I said that. I do think that there is some truth to what Jim says about the differing proclivities of men and women. Sure, members of both sexes like to look as well as to be seen, but, in a reversal of the roles of birds (where the females respond more obviously to bright visual cues), in human beings there is much more of a tendency for men to watch, and more blatantly. There is no song called "Music to Watch Guys Go By," no powder room for guys, no purses full of cosmetics and accessories, etc. Women do not have the wolf whistle or stand around saying "Guapo, guapo, guapo" (Spanish, of course: the male "call" to the female is "guapa," of course).</p>

<p>These things are so obvious that I cannot believe that you guys want to parrot the worst feminist cant (and there is some good feminist literature, but you guys seek out the worst).</p>

<p>This has all been very educational. Now I know where not to go when on the site.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>Most of the examples you've given are of men wanting to look. I never questioned that. But men wanting to look doesn't translate to women wanting to be watched, except in the minds of some guys who will project their proclivities and assume their prey is as game to receive as they are to give. Again, sure there are women who want to be seen. But I really think you are not attending to changing styles and mores regarding men. Men are going to the gym in droves, frequenting fancy hair salons, getting manicures, shaving their pubes. The men's cosmetics and accessories industry has been sky rocketing. Women do not generally have the wolf whistle but that doesn't mean men aren't more and more trying to make themselves the bait.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I still submit to you, Fred, that it is a matter of degree, and there is a distinct difference--and always has been.</p>

<p>Women really are very different in more than the obvious externalities. They really, really are quite different creatures.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I hope I've never given you the impression that I don't think women and men are quite different. Indeed, in many, many ways they are. But what's that got to do with the stereotypes that keep being asserted? I mean no one has responded to one of the many examples I've given where men are as interested if not more interested in asserting their physicality and exhibiting themselves. I seriously think that you are a man and you are only noticing women because that's what you do. There are men all around you coiffing and buffing up, primping, and exposing more and more and you're simply not interested in noticing. Which is fine. I wouldn't expect you to in a physical way. But, intellectually, I would expect at least some acknowledgment that a lot is going on that you are simply not tuned into. That's one of the differences. Most men are hard pressed to acknowledge the sexuality and physical presence of other men for fear of being accused, god forbid, of being gay. On the other hand, women will often recognize the beauty and sexuality of other women because they're not nearly as hung up as we guys are.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>One more thing. I know you've noticed what happens on these threads. But I've noticed something else. When two people, like Luis and I, are putting forth somewhat similar but really quite different arguments, we get lumped together and our arguments conflated. It's natural but it bugs me. I've read plenty of feminist literature, having specialized for several years in ecofeminist and medical ethics. I have purposely not referenced any of that literature and have not even commented on Luis's mention of some authors. Yet you've referred to "you guys" when talking about the feminist literature we've sought out. I have enough trouble articulating my own points, please don't lay others' arguments at my door step.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I also hope that I have not given the impression that I think that women are in any way inferior. Indeed, if anything, I think that they are better than we are.</p>

<p>I have noticed many of the things that you point out, but I also notice a difference in the way the "looking" ritual plays out. Women look but typically do not want to be caught looking. In addition, half of the time, when they are looking, they are looking to see if they are being looked at. There is a subtle dynamic at work here, one that accounts for the fact that most nudes are also posted by men. I also notice the social changes to which you refer, of course. Even so, in spite of some degree of convergence, I seriously doubt that we shall ever approach each other too closely with regard to the social dynamic of courtship and mating--and that is what all of this looking is about, after all. Sure, women size us up constantly, but they are much more sensitive, I believe, to how we are responding to their efforts to make themselves beautiful. When women work out,they want to be more beautiful. When men work out, it is as often as not to engage in some infantile power fantasy--very much a part of the typical male psyche, I am afraid. We might not be too far apart on our views, Fred, but, again, the differences, although matters of degree, are more substantial than you acknowledge, in my opinion.</p>

<p>I will post once more the sequence by John Peri that I posted not far above. What we are seeing here is a fairly common type of male-female interaction, although it is perhaps usually played out with clothes on and in a real-life courtship ritual. it is all about looking at and being looked at. There is something similar in the male and female roles, but there is also something different:</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/8947039&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8947039&size=lg</a></p>

<p>For me, that last frame still says it all. It's that knowledge that they know that we are watching that makes it all worthwhile. I think that, to a significant extent, we are hard-wired along these very different lines, although I could, of course, be mistaken--the first premise of any argument that I offer.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In a somewhat cursory google search, any studies and research I could find on exhibitionism dealt with it as a "deviant behavior" and as a mostly male practice. Though we are not really thinking of exhibitionism as a deviant behavior in these discussions, until someone can show me some research or data to the contrary, I will continue to be skeptical of <em>especially the first part of the claim</em> (which is what I've always been most concerned with) that started all this: "women being fundamentally exhibitionist and men being fundamentally voyeurs."</p>

<p>Here are two articles I've found on the subject and I haven't researched their veracity but there are many more articles making the same contention:</p>

<p>http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime.com/sexual_problems_pyschologist/psychologist_exhibitionism.htm</p>

<p>http://books.google.com/books?id=UTg5cj7UBiIC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=studies+on+male+and+female+exhibitionism&source=bl&ots=bkcTVRVySa&sig=wg2k0yj4cqQLQal3KQEi7-mYrQo&hl=en&ei=HrQLSv3zOZK4sgOm8OSNAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7</p>

<p>Without some responsible data to the contrary, I have to assume that the assertion that women are fundamentally exhibitionist is merely a projection and wishful thinking on the part of voyeuristic men. So far, the anecdotal evidence provided is not at all convincing other than to convince me of the proclivity we men have to delusion when it comes to these things, and that I admittedly know from the personal experience of often being deluded myself.</p>