The Power and the Glory

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, you are on your own on this one. Jim was clearly not talking about deviant behavior, but natural propensities that (from my perspective) might or might not be in evidence to some degree.</p>

<p>This thread has long since passed the point of absurdity.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[gdw]

<p >This is quite educational. Speaking of passing the point of absurdity. I was in no way aware that there were so many men that knew so much about women. I feel certain that I am older than either of you, speaking of Lannie or Fred, and maybe as old as both put together and I have absolutely no idea what women think and not sure I believe half, okay any, of what I read about what women think.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Personally I think that on all sides here there is considerable projection going on. Actually I am pretty certain of that. We all have a tendency to project our own thoughts, desires, feelings, hopes, beliefs on others. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have not pursued the "Jim" link so I may be talking out of turn here but in speaking of "natural propensities" could it not possibly be the "natural propensities" of the women that Jim pursues projected? If I only pursued nymphomaniacs would I not think that all women have a propensity to nymphomania? And I am not saying that Jim pursues nymphomaniacs, I just used that as an example.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >All I know is that I am happy in my ignorance. I don't want to know what or how women think, but simply to respectfully enjoy their existence, with a good deal of emphasis on the respect part. My wife (second, the first was for practice) and I just celebrated our thirty forth anniversary and I can assure you she is still a surprise every day. Just when I think I know I am suddenly made aware that I don't. I wouldn't have it any other way.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BTW: my wife who is, okay she's not looking over my shoulder right now, in her mid seventies just this past year allowed me to photograph her sans skivvies. It took me thirty years to wear her down. What would Jim say about my wife's natural propensities? </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>One last point is this, Fred: what I am trying to describe might better be explained in terms of the scholarly debate about the existence (or non-existence) of female "coyness." That term is somewhat loaded, too, but nowhere as loaded as the dichotomous terms that Jim used.</p>

<p>As a philosopher yourself, you know the range of meanings that come with terms. Wittgenstein on meaning and family resemblances should alert you (and all of us who have read him) to the possibility that persons often speak past each other precisely because they assume that they are talking about the same phenomenon simply because they are using the same words. They often are not, in spite of the superficial similarity of the terminology used.</p>

<p>So it is with Jim's use of "exhibitionist" to describe female behavior, and "voyeuristic" to describe male behavior. These are loaded terms, and I would avoid them, but Jim used them and I think that I know what he means. I still think that dichotomies such as "direct" v. "coy" (or something like these terms might) be more useful, especially as they relate to the present discussion--if only because the other terms have now passed into the literature and even into common parlance as implying a pathological psychological predisposition--a very sick compulsion.</p>

<p>Nonetheless the fact remains that men are in general "lookers" (without thereby being pathologically voyeuristic about it) and women are in general the ones gazed at or looked upon (again, without implying any kind of pathological compulsive tendency now typically associated with such a term as "exhibitionist").</p>

<p>In the case of your present portfolio here on Photo.net, what would the casual observer infer upon perusing it? Would you not be appalled if someone inferred that you were a "voyeur" simply because you had male nudes in your portfolio? Yet, those who shoot female nudes are open to that nearly constant charge, if the hate mail that Peri and others sometimes receive is any indication--and that "hate mail" often takes the form of the accusatory public posting, against which there is almost no possible defense.</p>

<p>This is the problem with that sad, sorry phenomenon that can occur anywhere (but especially on the web) once pejorative and <em>ad hominem</em> labels are used--and allowed to stand unchallenged. It is tough enough to deal with ambiguous and incendiary language in the classroom, but the use of such terms on the web invites the anonymous flame or the too droll troll, such as we have seen above once or twice.</p>

<p>So, if someone looks at your folder and infers not only that you are a voyeur but also that you are gay, what is going to be your response if that person starts referring to you in the language of perversion or moral depravity? Epithets such as "pervert," "perv," and "pervy" come to mind, among many others.</p>

<p>Surely you would not like it. Knowing that, please be considerate of those who likewise at this moment might be horrified that you have cited psychology journal articles implying the possibility that they are somehow sick or perverted because of the type of subjects that they shoot.</p>

<p>When you start citing the literature on psychological pathology, you have really opened a can of worms, and those worms might be crawling over your own dead bones as the discussion further manifests itself as putrification and degradation before our eyes.</p>

<p>I urge you to be more careful.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I have not pursued the "Jim" link so I may be talking out of turn here. . . . --Gary Woodard</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are commenting on it before having read it, Gary, I would have to say that you definitely are.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Gary--</p>

<p>I've been arguing a negative, as far as I know. A statement was made about what women think and I asked for some data to back it up. I'm quite conscious that there are a lot of men sitting here deciding what women think and I'm not one of them. Please don't imply, which I think you have in your first paragraph above, that I've been claiming to know what women think. I've been calling on those men who claim to know to put some money where there mouths are, and they haven't.</p>

<p>As far as my reading goes, the only statement I made suggesting I know what women think is this . . . one little time in all this arguing: "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." Maybe that was imprudent, but I tried really hard to steer clear of making claims about women because I knew all I wanted to do was challenge those men who were doing so. Sorry for the one little slip, but please don't make the claim that because I'm challenging someone's argument and engaging them, I'm guilty of the same thinking as they. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>It's been more than inferred that I'm a voyeur several times on the pages of my portfolio by viewers. And I've said it myself on many occasions. No, I'm not offended at all because it's true of me. And I explore that in much of my photography so I'm pleased when it's noticed because it means I'm communicating something personal and signficant. As far as "perv," I've been called it so many times by so many varieties of people for so many different reasons since I was about 11, that I'm pretty used to it by now. Luckily the "but names can rarely harm me" part of the old saying is very true. I'm much more bothered by violence against me or laws passed trying to curtail my humanity.</p>

<p>As for the articles talking about the pathology of exhibitionism, I clearly stated that in a cursory google search that was all the data I could find, that I knew we were not discussing exhibitionism as a pathology, but wanted to at least get some hard data on the table to try to stop all the assuming that was going on, and once again inviting those making claims to back them up with something substantial. If you can't handle that and you think it's a mucky can of worms, so be it. I thought it was all quite clear.</p>

<p>And you keep doing this and I keep not understanding why. <em>You keep conflating women being looked at</em> (as in the above: "men are in general 'lookers' and women are in general the ones gazed at or looked upon") <em>with women being exhibitionists</em>. That's been my main point the whole time and I don't know how much clearer I can make it than you have right here. Because men may be predisposed to being voyeurs, meaning by definition women are the ones being looked at, it does NOT follow that women WANT to be looked at or are exhibitionists (whether of the pathological or the benign kind). Because someone LIKES to look, of course it follows that the ones they are looking at are the ones looked upon, but it does not follow that the ones they like to look at WANT to be looked at like that.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[LK] "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> Um, sure.</p>

<p>[LK] "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> There's a pea under that mattress, but it's not mine. I did no such thing, and hope Jim knows it. You have (and I can easily go back and quote you) tripped over your own fantasies in this thread. Others pointed it out, too. Quoting Jim's own words is what it is, and nothing more.</p>

<p>___________________________________________________</p>

<p> Fred, I see that I misread what you were driving at with your question on the gaze business and derailed your argument, my apologies. I should have known you'd be well-versed on the subject.</p>

<p> I agree with Fred that men do what women do, in different, yet similar ways.</p>

<p> To digress much further, some nude photography, including many of the examples cited by Lannie, have qualities that fit somewhat under Foucault's medical gaze.</p>

<p> It can also be argued that the power of the outdoors/public nude (if one is nude outdoors, but there is no one around, it's not really "public", is it?) stems from reinforcing the status quo, not subverting it. Where are the examples of male public nudes? </p>

<p>Because so far it seems like the original question is incomplete and should be phrased more honestly:</p>

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

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>" . . . it seems like the original question is incomplete and should be phrased more honestly: 'How does one explain the power of what I can only call the FEMALE public nude'?"</p>

<p>A point I've tried making several times to no avail. If there is absolutely no sexuality involved in this nude photo making,which is the claim made several times here, then it's an amazing coincidence that the men shooting miraculously happen to pick only people of the gender to whom they happen to be sexually attracted to photograph. My portfolio has only nudes of men, but at least I'm aware that at least to some extent, that's because I'm sexually attracted to men. It doesn't mean all my nudes are about only sex or even sex to a great degree, they're not. But I'd be kidding myself if I didn't recognize that there is some sexuality going on with respect to them. A little sexual charge can go a long way in getting the creative juices flowing. My sense is that it's precisely the fear of being called a "perv" that Lannie has alluded to that is the reason for so many of the denials and claims being made in this thread.</p>

<p>I happen to think it's a great, although difficult, thread. Because it's mixing the very personal with the philosophical. And whether the claims are true or not, they are very real and I appreciate the honesty being spoken here even if I feel the truth is not being sought because no actual data is being supplied.</p>

[dougityb]

<p>time for a coffee break....</p>

[gdw]

<p>Lannie, you are right. As I admitted, I did not read the "Jim," whoever that is, link. Truthfully I have not even read most of the posts with much attention. I find the whole argument/discussion humorous and definitely much ado about nothing. So please, Fred, to not take my accusation so seriously. </p>

<p>There is a saying that in a hundred years it won't matter. I am sure we won't have to wait nearly that long on this discussion. LOL It has narrowed down to a presumably straight guy, a gay guy, and a disagreeable old fart who might go either way with Luis G and Doug breaking in occasionally.</p>

<p>And so the world turns.</p>

<p>Everyone can go home a winner. I'm sorry Lannie, I just can't seem to take any of this seriously.</p>

<p>Least anyone misunderstand and gets their panties in a wad, the "old fart" referenced above is me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Gary, you're always one of the most entertaining old farts I know.</p>

<p>I know a lot of folks don't take these discussions seriously and, being a philosopher, I'm used to that and not much bothered by it. Though I always marvel at the predisposition of many to come by and throw their two-cents in at the same time trying to belittle those who do engage in it seriously. There is some fascination even by those who aren't serious. Not saying any of that applies to you. I'm thinking of so many of those who like to come by and throw in one-liners about what a waste of time it is and how we should be out photographing instead when, in fact, they are spending their own time telling us what a waste of time it is and not out photographing either.</p>

<p>All that being said, I think about some of this stuff and like to talk about it, so that's why I come here. The main reason is that it stimulates me and I get to put some of that energy in my photos. Always have. I get careless, but usually try to pick my words very carefully and, yes, I do get bothered when I feel misunderstood or misquoted. But I know you mean no harm. You and I go way back and, interestingly enough, our first PN meeting was a great exchange on one of the first male nudes I ever did, which I have since removed from my portfolio because of the lack of a significant expression or connection between photographer and subject, a concept I talked about a million miles ago in this very thread.</p>

[gdw]

Fred, I do recall our first encounter, it was a self portrait of you lying in bed in what I interpreted as a semi fetal position. I think we disagreed on the vulnerability I saw in the photograph. Truthfully, I was disappointed when you removed some of your earlier photographs from your gallery. What I enjoyed about your nudes was their sense of honesty, something that I respect in photography. You and Igor Amelkovich have posted some of my favorite PN nude photographs and you both removed them. Fortunately, Igor's are still available on his website. Gary

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As far as this being a thread about the "public <em>female</em> nude," I have to say that I did at least try to find and introduce examples from the other side of the fence, but found only this one, which I posted earlier:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/4644505</p>

<p>Fred, I hope that you have not taken my own remarks as offensive. I can only imagine what you have gone through. My older daughter is gay and came out in the mid-nineties, optiimistic and secure in her faith that she could prevail. Well, she has, but it breaks my heart to imagine what she must go through every time that she is reminded by this or that referendum on what "marrriage" is that much of the world is never going to accept her in her full authentic humanity.</p>

<p>As far as this being a "guys ogling girls" thread, I can only say that that seems to be the way much of the world is, or at least the way much of our culture is, for whatever reason. I have posited some difference in the psychological makeup of men and women, but just how different are they/we? Some opinions by women would be welcome. The old "nature v. nurture" issue is at the core of the discussion as to why we see mostly female nudes posted. Is it outrageous to suggest that men simply are more voyeuristic than women? Are we? Even if so, does that necessarily imply that women are more exhibitionist (in the benign, normal sense) than men? Are they? That question remains, in spite of the many words we uttered on the topic.</p>

<p>A better question might be why so many more guys post to photography forums in general. I have never seen the statistical breakdown of male and female posters on the site, but it is pretty obvious that few of the women posters post nudes--of any kind. Perhaps it tells something that, when they do, the ones that get the best ratings are the female nude self-portraits.</p>

<p>It has also occurred to me, as to many others, that differing behaviors of males and females on this as on so many issues might in some sense be related to the historical fact of the subjugation of women across the centuries. If women were truly liberated, would we continue to see any difference in behaviors <em>qua</em> looking and being looked at? Can we expect an imminent surge of "public <em>male</em> nudes" as women become more liberated? I suspect not, but I do not know.</p>

<p>As with so many philosophical questions, at some point we exhaust our feeble opinions, shrug our shoulders, and walk away admitting that we just really do not know very much.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>No offense taken at all. It is liberating that you feel comfortable being candid and discussing these issues. As you know, the levels of being called a name and <em>discussing</em> being called a name are two very different planes. And believe me, having grown up in New York City, gone to college at a State University of New York, and then moving to San Francisco, I haven't gone through a fraction of what many of my peers have, gay or straight.</p>

<p>Words are interesting, like "voyeur," especially as you thought I might find it offensive relative to my photographs. Recently someone said it about an obviously voyeuristic photo (though not overtly sexual) of mine: http://www.photo.net/photo/8672712 (at least it seemed plausible to me and a few others that I was exploring voyeurism both personally and as it relates to the camera). Toward the end of the thread, someone questioned another critiquer's use of the word voyeur, asking if he meant it positively or negatively. The question was never answered but I didn't for a moment think it was meant negatively, especially since I have a short history with this particular critiquer. I think many photographers would and should take being called a voyeur and some recognition of that in their work as a compliment.</p>

<p>Gary--</p>

<p>You're right. I forgot about the self portrait. It's actually still posted: http://www.photo.net/photo/5510480 but in a hidden folder, more because I try to keep my portfolio pruned because I find it traumatic to be confronted with portfolios with hundreds of visible photos. I was thinking of the more graphic (in the sense of design, not sexual blatancy) one of a friend on the back steps, which I can't seem to find. When I set up my own web site, if I can stop talking philosophy long enough, I'll likely include many of those early ones in a section of their own. Thanks for your kind words.</p>

<p>Back to Lannie for a sec:</p>

<p>"It seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, <strong>that I do not think I know what I do not know</strong>". (<em>Socrates, <em>Apology</em>)</em></p>

[dougityb]

<p>How many photographers are hererosexual male? How many are heterosexual female? And how many are homosexual male, and how many are lesbian female?</p>

<p>My guess is the majority of photographers will be a combination of hetero males and lesbian females. Point being, most photographers (by number) would probably prefer a nude female over a nude male.</p>

<p>Therefore, more female nudes. </p>

<p>Or, since males of any orientation are generally sight driven, (sexually speaking -I don't have any proof, but I think that's pretty widely accepted) wouldn't one expect any males posting nudes to post nudes of the gender to which he is attracted? The last I heard, the gay/straight divide was 90/10 percent (again, no proof.) If all that's true, the math should follow that most nudes would be female.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding the linked examples,* the original question seemed neutral regarding the model's gender, and to me, that aspect of the discussion is somewhat irrelevant, although interesting. Why should the gender of the nude be of any consequence as it relates to the question? </p>

<p>*I don't remember any redheads in the examples, either, yet no one is fussing about them being excluded. Or why they were mostly caucasion?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Doug--</p>

<p>I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I was fussing (really, it's been a late-breaking and minor part of the discussion) over the gender of the subjects was precisely because of what you say: "Or, since males of any orientation are generally sight driven, (sexually speaking -I don't have any proof, but I think that's pretty widely accepted) wouldn't one expect any males posting nudes to post nudes of the gender to which he is attracted?" You are, thankfully, not afraid to speak sexually regarding at least some aspect of the nudes, the "attraction" part. The reason I focused a bit on the obvious gender choices for the photo examples is precisely because many of the photographers and guys talking were denying, quite adamantly, any sexual component to the making of nude photographs. The attraction is important, as you recognize. Other than that point, I agree with you, it's pretty irrelevant. But it needed to be pointed out because of the denials being made. Had someone made the claim that there was no issue of race regarding who we photograph, I might well have pointed out that the examples were white women, but it never came up.</p>

<p>As far as "I don't have any proof, but I think that's pretty widely accepted" that can often and has often gotten society into a lot of trouble. I've actually always heard the same thing and have found myself, for the most part, accepting it as well, but I'd still like to see some studies on the matter before putting too much significant stock in it. There's also a tricky discussion to be had on whether, even if it's true, the differing visual proclivities are something hard-wired that we're stuck with or culturally induced that may be changing as we speak.</p>

[dougityb]

<p>Maybe we have to agree that there is indeed a sexual basis with regard to the power and the glory in order to get back to answering the question? </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Doug--</p>

<p>Not a bad idea. You brought up shame/vulnerability and you mentioned your feelings about your own body especially as you age. For me, it would include some aspects of shame and vulnerability and much more and it's very much about my feelings about my body and myself as I age. I can't necessarily name all the feelings, but they very much go into why I photograph nude men in my own age category. It's very visual, and many men, straight and gay, in my close circle and in my age group mention that they think about their changing bodies and changing sexuality a lot. So, since it's visual and personal and on the minds of many people I know including myself, it seems a very genuine and pertinent subject to explore with my camera. I think only one of the photographers whose examples were shown said something and I'm grateful he did. I'd love to hear about the motivations and experiences of others doing this kind of photographing. For me, it's about exploring who I am at this stage in my life and how I see others and how they see and present themselves. It's about expressing something of that exploration. I'm not really much in tune with the notion of power and glory as it relates here. It seems somewhat distanced and statement-oriented to me.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[DB] " Why should the gender of the nude be of any consequence as it relates to the question?"</p>

<p> For many reasons. If spatial gender politics exist, and the Abrahamic rules apply, then bringing out a female nude into public space subverts the social order, & is very different than doing the same with a male nude. Since the female photographic nude is most of the time a sex fetish, no matter what else it may be, the gender of the model --- and photographer --- matter. If women are indeed objectified in the culture, and manipulated as power objects, then bringing the nude into a public space might be reinforcing/conforming to, not subverting the status quo. Again, gender matters factually. There was only one male nude example given, and it was not in a public space. The original question seemed neutral, but as Lannie clearly demonstrated in his text and choice of examples, was not.</p>

<p> We don't have to agree on anything to answer the question. It has many answers.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Didn't Socrates say that aesthetics and sexuality were very closely related? I think that I remember reading that, perhaps in the <em>Symposium.</em> (What about it, Fred? Do you remember which dialog it is in and how it is stated?)</p>

<p>I also remember Gary asking me (more or less) if i were fascinated by pubic hair, to which the answer was and is "yes"--but a more accurate answer would have been (for me as a straight male), "but only if it is on a woman's body." (That came around early, in a discussion of Beepy's nude ballerina.)</p>

<p>So, yes, the sexual component is definitely there in the aesthetic appreciation of the nude, which is not to say that one cannot (as a straight male) appreciate the aesthetics of Michelangelo's <em>David</em> (or the photographic analog), but the sexual appeal is going to be a factor in the appreciation of almost all nude photography, I believe. If that means that we are all "voyeurs," so be it. It is hard to see how we could be otherwise and be either photographers or critics of photography. On the other hand, I have heard straight women say that they prefer to look at female nudes rather than male nudes. That is perhaps paradoxical, but not necessarily false.</p>

<p>What we are not (necessarily) is "voyeurs" in the legal or clinical psychological senses. In addition, we have spoken of being voyeurs or exhibitionists as if they were polar opposites. In pathological cases, at least, they are usually seen together, if I am not mistaken in what I have read somewhere in the distant past. I think both components are also present in healthy persons--and possibly to varying degrees across gender lines, but that is what we were discussing earlier. I still lean toward the view that men tend to be more often the "lookers," and women the "lookees"--but is that a preference, or just a fact of life, given the sometimes rather aggressive behaviors of males?</p>

<p>As Fred correcty pointed our earlier, women certainly do not always appreciate being looked at, or at least being stared at. I still think that they would like even less, however, if they were no longer looked at at all, which they often are less and less (like it or not) as they grow plumper and grayer.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>There was only one male nude example given, and it was not in a public space.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, if you are talking about Jana Vanourkova's shot "Boring Afternoon," I got the sense that it was a candid shot in a public park in Prague. I might be mistaken.</p>

<p>On another note, "nudist camps" are hardly typical of human behavior in the aggregate, but they might (or might not) tell us something about human nature. I am thinking in particular about a site I once saw of Arealonga, in Galicia (Spain). The shots there were so relaxed and informal, from a different epoch, that I had a sense at times that I was looking very nearly at human nature as it might be if the power relationships were <em>not</em> there. Perhaps that was something that I read into the photos, but that is the sense that I got. I'll see if I can Google it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>That's a very good photo, Fred. By the way, how do you hide a folder?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>Don't want to speak much about The Symposium as it's been a while since I read it and there's probably more nuance about the questions you raise than we want to get into here. But I'll do a little: Plato puts down art as a mere reflection of what's already a reflection of the true Reality, a Form. Yet he exalts the notion of Beauty. Since Beauty and art were so separable for him, it is hard to really come up with a position on aesthetics, yet people do, relying more on what he said about art and representation than on what he says about Beauty. What I remember him saying about Beauty in the Symposium actually does relate to sex. The claim could be made that he considered sex and art on a similar plane, that of the body and of the senses, for Plato not a very good place to be or to remain for very long. On the other hand, Beauty was recognizing something in The Mind that happens when you consider the Idea of two bodies coming together. Beauty is an essence, sex simply an act and a fleeting possibility. As so many analogies with Plato, it's like going up a staircase, from the vision of one body to the coming together of two bodies, all on the sensual level, finally culminating in the higher Idea/Ideal and Understanding of Beauty, the Reality behind the less real (for Plato) sensual part.</p>

<p>Perhaps since I think Plato goes awry in missing the Beauty in the senses, in what we see and feel -- since he thinks Beauty can only be tapped by the Understanding and Ideas -- I'm disposed to see the sensuality, sexuality, and even some baseness if appropriate explored in the genre of the nude. Others are more Platonic in their approach and more high-minded in attempting to take the nude out of the more physical realms and deal with it in a much more rational way, and I'm not making a value judgment here, I'm simply noticing a difference of approach, and any approach, I think, is laudable. Brain has said that his work is about freedom, is not meant to be sexual, some of the works are meant to be affirmations of life, and that he seeks to challenge a mindset. That, to me, is much more Platonic an approach than many others take, myself included.</p>

[dougityb]

<p>Luis, your answer give me a broader prespective on this issue, and answers many other questions that have been waving about in my head for years. Thanks. I approach my art, and my life, on much simpler terms, such as "Doug hungry: must eat now' and "Pretty flower good. Sharp nettle bad"</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"That's a very good photo, Fred. By the way, how do you hide a folder?"</p>

<p>Thanks :) </p>

<p>Go to your workspace. Click on a folder under "Manage Your Gallery Folders." When you get there, click on the tab toward the top right side that says ADMIN OPTIONS. Click on the third bullet from the bottom in the right column of bullets "Edit folder title and set visibility." Check the box next to "Hide this folder from my portfolio view." Voila.</p>