The Power and the Glory

[luis_g]

<p>Doug, amazing as it might seem, my approach to life and art is far simpler than my navel-gazing.</p>

<p>BTW, I like your train station pictures.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis--</p>

<p>I think that the thing people often don't understand about philosophers is that when I do philosophy, I think pretty critically and often have to use a lot of words to explain things because it is sometimes necessary to overtly exclude a lot of things while I'm asserting others, explaining terms as I go along. When I have sex, shoot photographs, and watch TV, life is much more sensual, simple, and casual, though I sometimes find myself having a little 'splainin' to do as well. I imagine many accountants, construction workers, and teachers experience a similar phenomenon and I can only imagine the reactions the poor guys would get from strangers popping in their heads if there were an Accounting of Photography forum!</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Fred -- Yes, most of us live in multiple levels of existence simultaneously. People that know me are amazed to find out that when I am photographing, fly-fishing, etc, that it's 100% intuitive, and often lapse into aphasic trances.</p>

<p> When I was little, cab drivers would lie in wait for calls parked under big, shady trees. One of them parked not far from my house. He befriended me, and while we talked, he was always intensely scribbling. Finally, one day, when I was maybe 8 yrs old, I could not resist, and asked him what he was writing about. "I am a poet pretending to be a a cab driver", he said. I asked him to tell me a poem. I don't remember a word of it, but it felt like butterflies were coming out of his mouth and enveloping me. </p>

<p> </p>

[dougityb]

<p>Luis, your cab driver poet story is the most amazing thing I've read in this thread since it started. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Gosh, just hearing the reference to poetry makes me wish that I were capable of creating something, anything of lasting value, that people would remember, even if they forgot who created it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a thread started by Brian Grossman, one of the four photographers whom I mentioned at the outset:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00SW1t</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>In closing out my own postings to this thread, I would like to offer a few personal observations:</p>

<p>first, the public nude as a genre is probably one that does warrant further serious exploration and inquiry;</p>

<p>second, that genre probably entails more risks than most photography;</p>

<p>third, the genre also probably requires at least as much discipline as other sub-genres involving the nude if it is to ascend to true art and not degenerate into something approaching pornography;</p>

<p>fourth, I do not think that it can ever be art if its purpose is to shock, debase, or degrade;</p>

<p>fifth, I nonetheless think that it can be done as art, and has been done as art (as a few examples on this page indicate: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=304990 ):</p>

<p>sixth, I think that, if one is going to try it, one should approach it in a serious and sober-minded way--and I would hope that all attempts to explore it and critique it should be treated with respect, as well as exhibit a certain kind of respect and even reverence for the nude form (and social values related to its display), lest the entire undertaking degenerate into some kind of "rebel without a cause" manifestation that fails to understand the difference between a challenge to social mores and a simple gesture of disrespect towards those mores;</p>

<p>seventh, I will almost certainly never try it. I have not tried any kind of nude photography. If I were going to try, I think that the nude in nature, hackneyed though it may be, would be my preference. The reason for me would be simple: I love nature, and I am actually a lot more comfortable with the idea of the private than the public nude--and, if one travels through the kind of country that I have on foot, one can certainly find privacy in nature. In addition, the congruity between the natural form and the natural environment is both morally and aesthetically appealing to me. That said, like the daisy that grows up in the cracks between sidewalks,the public nude might be an authentic manifestation of the attempt to return to nature amidst the carnage of post-industrial society.</p>

<p>I want to acknowledge all of those who contributed, especially those who earnestly tried and managed to rise above the flippant and banal in their responses.</p>

<p>Thank you all.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As a final gesture of respect and admiration for the work of Yuri Bonder, who passed away last year, I offer this example of his own work--not a true "public nude," but one which shows the fruits of his aspiration to attain that aesthetic ideal that I would like to see brought to that genre, if that be possible:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2311169</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>On Bonder's death:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00PLjb</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photography-news-forum/00PMQF</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Google with come up with plenty more public T&A <a href="http://www.google.fi/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enFI225FI225&q=public+nude">links</a> if you're really into "philosophising" over that stuff... :)</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Tell us more about yourself, Paul.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>No. I'd rather sit here and chuckle at all the "philosophising" over some cheap'n'cheesy softcore nudie pics... :) Most amusing.... :)</p>

<p>BTW, have you seen "Two Girls, One Cup"...? That should give you something to get yer philosophical teeth into... :)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Paul, that is all that the nude can ever be for you because you will never aspire to make it anything higher or nobler.</p>

<p>You remind me of <em>Hustler</em> 's cheap humor, the snickering over sexuality and the body that so typifies adolescence.</p>

<p>So. . . grow up!</p>

<p>Besides, there is really no reason for you to tell us more, because you have already told us as much about yourself as we could ever want to know, and, to boot, you assume that everyone is at the same state of arrested moral and psychological development.</p>

<p>What defines an authentic human being is that one aspires to be better than one is. I'm sorry that you have given up.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Enjoy the links... :) We ain't judgin', philosophy boy... :)</p>

<p>Pub.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, have you seen "Two Girls, One Cup"...? That should give you something to get yer philosophical teeth into... :) --Paul Wilkins</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I have not, but I just looked it up on <em>Wikipedia</em> . I will pass on that one, Paul.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>I think you've set out too many objective parameters. I'd likely respect whatever way you approached a nude (though I might not like it) that didn't involve harm to anyone. I'd respect what limitations you put on yourself. So I can particularly relate to Number 7, not because that's how I would approach nudes but because it's a genuine statement of how you would do it. But in Numbers 3 through 6, you've put a lot of emphasis on what others should do and what art should be. That's a problem.</p>

<p>Number 3: Other than in some very early schools of art, the notion that art has to ascend anywhere is very limiting. Much Dadaism, Surrealism, even Expressionism explores descent without approaching pornography. The degenerative powers of some artists can be an amazing ride. Art need not have a lofty goal. Certainly nude photographs don't have to.</p>

<p>Number 4: On shock, debase, degrade, see my comments to Number 3. There's so much art that does this that I'm not sure how you can make this claim. Which, of course, doesn't mean you have to like, respect, or buy it. But where does taste begin and art end. There's lots of art I don't like. My not liking it does NOT make it not art.</p>

<p>Number 5: No problems here, actually. This is what you like. Believe me, there are some people who would look at it and immediately classify it as pornography (their bar would be extremely lower than yours and I assume you know those people exist). I look at it, admire the consistency, some of the technical acuity, and get little from it emotionally. I see little life and feel very little actual power. And I hope I don't have to say that many female nudes reach me artistically. Take the second photo in the folder, which includes the male. They are in very close proximity to each other, bodies touching, in what could feel like an intimate moment (and I mean "intimate," not sexual). Yet this photo, to me, is anything but intimate and anything but in the moment. I feel like it could be any time, any place, any other moment. I don't care about or am not transported to the moment before or the moment after, so I'm not made aware that it's a moment in time. It doesn't in any way feel like the expressions are genuine, but instead made for the camera. Though the bodies are touching, they are cold toward each other. They are touching but they might as well be across the room from each other. Pretty and handsome, yes. Well lit, yes. The triangular area under the guy's chin a little mucky, yes. I leave the photo feeling no differently from when I arrived. Now, sure, this photo could have been done in a lofty way or in what you call an ascending manner and could move me. When I look, I say that some more grit wouldn't hurt it at all. But that's just my taste. What I said applies to much that's in the folder.</p>

<p>Number 6: Art and reverence are only linked in some very special eras and schools. For me, it would be horribly limiting to think that all nude art had to be in any way reverent. Disrespect can be a key ingredient in some brilliant creations. No artist has to approach his art in a sober-minded way. Lots of the greats did amazing work high as kites. From William Burroughs to Charlie Parker, artists have not approached their art sober-mindedly. What effects did Van Gogh's supposed use of absinthe have? I don't think Berlioz approached his <em>Symphonie Fantastique</em> with a sober mind. Furthermore, in some cases, humor and disrespect is as important as seriousness. From Jean Michelle Basquiat: "I had some money, I made the best paintings ever. I was completely reclusive, worked a lot, took a lot of drugs. I was awful to people."</p>

<p>Please, there's an awful lot of room between "higher and nobler" and Paul's simple childishness or meaninglessness. In that vast territory is a lot of art and a lot of nudes. A lot of great art is provocative and less than sober or serious. I think art, essays, politicians can be provocative in effective ways. For that to happen, we have to in some way relate to or be woken up or moved by the provocation. Otherwise, it's just unruly behavior that deserves a dunce cap!</p>

<p>Lannie, when I saw your post I was kind of thrilled that you came back to wrap things up. Had you done it from a personal point of view, I would have been happy to let you have the last word, since you started it all and it's been mostly a good and productive thread. But when you summarize in terms of what others should be doing and what art should be, I prefer not to let that stand unanswered.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>You're probably right, Fred, since what I have done (without really thinking about it) is to try to define art.</p>

<p>My real point, of course, was to give emphasis to what I think the <em>public </em> nude should be before <em>I</em> could truly appreciate it. I'm sorry that instead I phrased my personal preferences in such an imperial manner.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that the idea of the public nude could not be appreciated (even by me) on a variety of levels. I guess that I was more concerned with trying to satisfy those who think that it cannot and could not ever be a legitimate sub-genre of nude photography. Trying to satisfy others who might be critical is always a grave error, of course. One must surely follow one's own artistic vision, whether as artist or as critic--or both.</p>

<p>I failed in this effort at a summary in a number of ways. Thanks for pointing some of them out.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It all makes a lot more sense in light of your third paragraph above. I know that when I respond to certain critics, I will often emphasize certain qualities or issues for a particular audience rather than allowing for a broader discussion of a topic that may have many facets. Even in these rooms, I've been misunderstood (or not made myself clear) because of that sort of emphasis which makes people think I'm completely excluding other matters when I'm simply not attending to them at the moment. Sometimes, it's effective to play devil's advocate and even overstate a point in order to make it to a resistant audience. But it does, sometimes, come back to haunt us. Thanks for your follow up.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a response that I just got via e-mail from another Photo.net member:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"[Y]ou should probably look at how nudes are used in European advertising (see <a href="http://www.naktiv.net/ads/" target="_blank">http://www.naktiv.net/ads/ </a> and <a href="http://nakedmarketing.blogspot.com/2005/02/european-advertising.html" target="_blank">http://nakedmarketing.blogspot.com/2005/02/european-advertising.html </a> ) while not all of these are public, they do indicate a strong acceptance of the nude as medium to convey a message, which is not seen in the US. While these images do, in general, tend to appeal to one sexually (both male and female), there is more to the message than just sex. They, by definition, are trying to sell the viewer something. This something can be a product or it can be an idea. Note that there is a Swedish commercial for either a beer or a soft drink that has five or six actresses playing volleyball. When the commercial aired in this country, the actresses all had on tops. This is an indication that the US is probably too prudish to discuss this topic rationally. Your forum thread tends to confirm this."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will simply pass this on rather than comment on it myself, except to say that it interprets what we are discussing here as being part of much larger issues concerning differing mores in the United States and other countries concerning the portrayal of nudity.</p>

<p>It also suggests that the way that the thread has developed also reflects those differing social mores.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Of course there's a difference in the European approach of the ( public ) nude vs the American approach. I remember shampoo commercials that showed more skin that what's been linked to here. The american culture is afraid to show some skin ( oh my god that's a nipple right there !! ) but they are more than happy to show you blood, and lots of it....</p>

<p>IMO, Spencer Tunick, an American artist, not necessarily a photographer, came closest to a public statement about the ' public nude ' then anyone before or after....Either way, I favor Weston's approach, or Sieff's, or Brandt's,...They photographed women, without the boring politics attached to them...and without the women that where photographed being about a simple boring generic male fantasy. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, Phylo. Yes, it is the nude <em>per se </em> that is inherently interesting. All of the speculation about the political implications (along with the amateur psychologizing) should not blind us to the fact that it is finally about beauty and its honest portrayal.</p>

<p>This photo by Yuri Bonder says it all to me: whether "the wall" (between, say, her and the public street) were there OR NOT in this picture, she would still be standing before us in all of <strong>HER power and glory</strong> :</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/2311169&size=lg</p>

<p>Never mind that in this case the wall is so beautiful that it, along with the flowers, competes with her form for the viewer's attention. Finally, it really should not matter whether it is there or not: <strong>SHE </strong> is the real point of the photo.</p>

<p>In this thread we have been talking about the darned "wall" that demarcates public from private. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>And, for all I know, the model above just might have been standing on the <em>public </em> street side of the wall, not the <em>private</em> garden side.</p>

<p>Does it matter? Should it matter? Well, apparently to some people (especially in this culture) it really, really <em>does</em> matter, and I think that that fact is what is under benign assault by those like Grossman, Phelps, Bonder, Vanourkova, "Beepy," Peri, and many others.</p>

<p>For many in this culture above all, however, the "assault" is anything but benign. It threatens, in their mind, to subvert the entire social order.</p>

<p><strong>Well, what if it does?!</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dougityb]

<blockquote>

<p>The american culture is afraid to show some skin ( oh my god that's a nipple right there !! ) but they are more than happy to show you blood, and lots of it....</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is off topic, but in the town 40 miles down the highway from me, some guy tried to open a porno shop. He actually had it open for a while, but it was closed down by local authorities. In court, it was finally decided that he couldn't open the store again. </p>

<p>I thought it was ironic that in my state (Virginia), a completely sane and respectable person can't buy something that will almost definitely be used/watched/enjoyed privately in the home with the doors locked and the shades drawn, but a certifiably crazy person could go to a local gun shop, buy several guns and loads of ammo, and then kill 32 people with them, (Virginia Tech, 2007).</p>

<p>Tell me that's not screwed up.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Well said, Doug.</p>

<p>By the way, I love your latest portrait that you posted on the site today. What beautiful red tones throughout!</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9184423</p>

<p>"Beepy," aka Brian Pawlowski, has explored the "realm of the red" in one of his most recent threads as well:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9163357</p>

<p>Maybe we are just a bunch of "Reds." I'm sure that that is the public perception, in any case. If we were saying all this in the 1950s, we would had to have been "communist inspired" radicals, bent on the destruction of civilization itself.</p>

<p>Only in America. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Wow, Doug! Does she ever beam out at us on "large"!</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/9184423&size=lg</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>