The Power and the Glory

[beepy]

<p>Fred hit a point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a good reminder of the power not of the nude but of the photograph. And a reminder that the experience of the photograph is not the same as the experience of the moment in which the photograph was taken.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the first sentence. A separate point is made in the second. But the second point is fluid. I do a lot of directed photography where the setup and people in the image are assembled. And then I push the button. I am often left wanting to move on to the next thing. Particularly with digital, I know exactly what was captured, but remember <a href="../photo/winogrand">Winogrand left 2,500 rolls of exposed but undeveloped film behind</a>. The photographer's and participants experience is fleeting, the image is the experience that other's participate in, and then we close circle with the first sentence of the power of the photograph.<br>

Maybe somewhere in here loosely tied to this thread is that all photographers are voyeurs, and all people in photographs are exhibitionists, and the lines are much more blurred between the specifics of public vs. non-public once the genie (image) is let out of the bottle.<br>

Need more coffee.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I need a drink--and I don't even drink.</p>

<p>Uh, are we still in Photo.net? I personally feel that we are deep in philosophical space, and that someone just cut the umbilical cord to the mother ship.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5795712</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Perhaps it is well to remember that this is not the first time that many of these issues have come up, as in this earlier thread on this very forum:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00FRmJ</p>

<p>There are some great one-liners here and there.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm always fascinated by how what would seem like an otherwise mundane moment can translate to a compelling photograph. Unfortunately, the converse of that is true as well. Fabulous moments often translate to lousy photographs. "Translate" is a poor choice of words. Because the moment, very often, doesn't translate. It seems more to be <em>transformed</em> into a photograph.</p>

<p>I sometimes feel I've caught a gleam in a subject's eye (in the right light and with the right exposure and focus) that tells a different emotional story from the overt story at the time of capture. I don't think we're ever really complete in our emotional states. When we are overwhelmingly sad, our eyes may still at some point tell of something different, especially as read through a lens. That may become the truth of the photograph while being much less about the truth of the moment.</p>

<p>Then again, it's really amazing when you captur the soul of the moment.</p>

<p>No wonder we love it.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>The first line from the thread Lannie linked: "The nude has always provided great insight into ourselves."</p>

<p>This discussion is about the participants "hang ups" about nudity. I use "hang ups" because I'm an old guy, and for me it means something like: the deep psychological consequences of the enculturation one has "suffered". Not all hang ups are pathological, of course, but many are. Many of the images linked in the latter part of this thread are obviously touching some of the deepest consequences of our repressed and Puritan lives, and couching the reactions in profound philosophical rhetoric may obscure, but does not change that. </p>

<p>Such discussion can be very interesting, enlightening, and even therapeutic, but I really don't think the real topic here is nudes. To quote Lannie's original post, "Rather (it seems to me) they challenge an entire social order, or possibly all social orders (although I would not want to claim that, as some have done)."</p>

<p>It's that simple, and that complex. Nudity challenges Judeo-Christian-Puritan-Conservative social order, and that's why there are now 150 posts here. It's culture at work on your subconscious, and the struggle to articulate it is difficult. Nudes challenge some social orders very deeply, although some social orders would hardly notice them, and would very likely spend far less time photographing them and then discussing the photographs. </p>

<p>One can defend social order, or one can simply "listen" to challenges, meditate on them and decide which are genuinely dangerous, or profound, or meaningless. I think that, other than the aesthetic qualities of the human form, nudes are actually quite meaningless, except for the ways in which they touch our deepest fears about the social order. </p>

<p>I mean, really, taking off your clothes is Important? To whom? Why would that be except for some rather silly social conventions? We are all naked under our clothes, but hardly anyone wants to admit that, and when someone proves it, we talk about it for days.</p>

<p>It's just culture, and culture is hardly ever profound; it's just very useful. Except, of course, when it's harmful.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Great post, Larry!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's just culture, and culture is hardly ever profound; it's just very useful. Except, of course, when it's harmful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and sometimes, when it is harmful, we do not have a general cultural disaster, only disappointed personal expectations when reality does not live up to our idealized expectations. </p>

<p>Or, as Bert Reitter says with the following photo, "If you tie your hopes to an illusion, you are bound to end up in disappointment":</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5848255&size=lg</p>

<p>The question with regard to cultural norms is always, I think, whether or not they are based on such "illusions."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[lou korell]

<p>Philosophically speaking, the ancient concept of glorifying the beauty of the human form has been the most utilized reason for the art nude. Whether in photography, painting, sculpture, or other art forms, that has been the standard line.<br>

While I do believe there may be those who subscribe to this line of reason, I really think it is the same thing as saying..."I only look at Playboy for the articles". :)<br>

People are sensually stimulated by the notion of nakedness. You can look at nudes all day and talk about the technical nature of the production, but you are still going to use part of your brain to explore the body for more pruriant satisfaction. I know I can view a Victoria's Secret catalogue and admire the craftsmanship of the lighting and composition. But I'm still going to think a lot about the chicks and how nice they look. If you are human, it is natural to put aside the "art" for a minute and just LOOK. When you are shooting a model, tell me you are not going to "check her out" for her good looking attributes. It would be very difficult, artist or not, to completely separate yourself from the most elementary human instincts.<br>

Anyway, that's my opinion on this subject. </p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Public exposure of human form can not be a factor changing social order but the changes of SO on base of evolving economics usually brings change in moral and aesthetic setup thus more/less tolerance in cases. Even in one given socium people are not similar in their degrees of intelectual development, religious, moral and aesthetic attainments, tastes and experiences. That is normal or usual among members of cultural elite can be seen as way too challanging among other social groups and in this way potentially disruptive to functions of society. No wonder many prefer to stay away from it or even deny it for the sake of common sociability.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It would be very difficult, artist or not, to completely separate yourself from the most elementary human instincts. --Lou Korell</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is surely true, Lou, and even physicians are bound to notice the attributes of their patients--as you also surely do of your clients fully dressed.</p><p>It is quite another leap to say that physicians specialize in obstetrics and gynecology in order to get a peek. There are surely some artists who deal with the nude who have not only the self-discipline but a sense of the sacred sufficiently strong to restrain them from ogling their models--and rest assured that many persons do have a sense of the sacred where sexuality is concerned. If you are saying that we all notice and that we all look, then of course I would have to agree with you--but for [straight] men that is typically as true of a dressed woman as for an undressed woman. (In fact, sometimes the dressed or partially dressed woman is a lot sexier than one who is totally nude. A perusal of pictures of women in varying states of dress and undress will surely confirm this.)</p><p>The ineluctable tension that all of us face as human beings is that we all feel a sense of specialness (and possibly even sacredness) about the human body even as we also are capable of being driven by the prurient interest when gazing upon it. That tension can, I believe, be a source of great creativity for the artist. In addition, there is a difference between admiration and the rawest lust.</p><p>We need not, that is, always give in to our baser instincts. Yes, sexuality and emotions evoked by the naked form can be raw and nearly ferocious--and also healthy at the same time, I believe, if in their proper time and place. That hardly means that those who engage in nude photography are lechers or perverts of some sort. I strongly suspect that they are just like the rest of us--bundles of contradictions yet trying to resolve those contradictions and be better than we are.</p><p>I do not doubt that there are really sick types out there trying (at this very moment) to line up some amateur model from Craigslist for the worst possible reasons--simply to see a woman naked, or worse. To leap from that to say that persons seeking models for serious work are similarly motivated is simply untrue.</p><p>What has always struck me about the best artists in the genres of nude painting and nude photography is how often they speak of a special if not sacred bond that they develop with their models. They know that they have been given a sacred trust in their callings as artists, and I think that many of them try to live up to the requirements of trust with the utmost purity of heart.</p><p>Would I be capable of that kind of purity of heart while photographing nudes? No, I do not think that I would, and perhaps that is one reason that I stay away from it and shoot landscapes and old falling-down houses instead.</p><p>--Lannie</p>

[lou korell]

<p>That's right Lannie, there's nothing like those old antique wooden doors to get the old blood pumping, eh? LOL<br>

Unfortunately you are right, there probably are those who's intent is not necessarily purely artistic or photographic. That is why we have to go out of our way as photographers to make our subjects feel comfortable and safe in those situations where any type of nude or semi-nude style is involved. I'm sure that when news of some crime being committed by a would-be photographer is aired, the rest of us cringe with disgust - not only because it is horrible but because our jobs have just become a bit more difficult by default.<br>

It is not easy to go up to someone and ask them to model because you think they look good. Our very legitimacy is in question at that point and I'm sure many of us, including myself tend to avoid the situation altogether given the instant feeling of suspicion.<br>

One can only wonder how difficult it must be for the model to ensure they are dealing with a reputable artist. I don't know how they do it.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"bundles of contradictions"</p>

<p>Which is why a serious artist may or may not feel "a sacred bond that they develop with their models."</p>

<p>I have photographed many men naked and not once felt that sacred bond, nor would I have wanted to.</p>

<p>From a Wordpress blog: "Mapplethorpe was known for treating his models as puppets whom he could easily manipulate into compromising erotic and autoerotic scenarios."</p>

<p>We all know Hitchcock's history with his actresses. I heard Tippi Hedren (<i>Marni, The Birds</i>) speak once at the Castro Theater and she said she considered Hitchcock a brilliant artist, yet after a couple of films with him she broke a contract she had signed to do quite a few more because he was such a lecher.</p>

<p>I find that associating morality with aesthetics is dangerous business. That's why I have recoiled several times at the assumption either of something "sacred" or "glorious" about the nude or public nude. The nude can certainly be those things. Or not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I should add that, of course, criminal behavior towards one's subjects or models is a different matter, and the type of behavior expected both of photographer and model will vary widely depending on the type of shoot it is and the goals of the collaboration.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'd like to bring it back to what seemed like an interesting recent line of discussion in this thread, the difference between the moment and the photograph. Having respect for and even considering sacred the subject you're working with doesn't mean you will make or even try to make a photograph that will express or communicate that sacredness. One can feel a very sacred bond with a subject while making a very profane photograph. The reverse is true. A very overtly sexual/voyeuristic/objectifying liaison can transform itself into what will appear and be a sacred photograph. All kinds of transformations take place between the morality of the moment and the aesthetics of the photograph. Or not. The photograph may well reflect very closely and intimately the moment. That moment and the resulting photograph -- regarding nudes, public or private -- may be sacred or profane, loving or illicit, spiritual or physical, and lots of gray areas in between.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>That's why I have recoiled several times at the assumption either of something "sacred" or "glorious" about the nude or public nude. The nude can certainly be those things. Or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, you are reading something into my comments about "sacredness" and "morality" which I have neither said nor implied.</p>

<p>I have NOT said that the public nude is sacred. (It is quite possibly <strong><em>quite</em> </strong> profane!) I have made reference to sacredness only in the context of respect for the body, as on the part of a doctor examining a patient, etc. I stand by what I said.</p>

<p>There most certainly are ethical considerations at stake where the treatment, use, or display of another's body is concerned.</p>

<p>My assumption is that nude art/photography can be a legitimate and ethical enterprise. (Is my assumption perchance false?) In my opinion, it is neither legitimate or ethical if the intent is tawdry attempts at stimulation, much less attempts to debase or debauch.</p>

<p>As for the "public nude." its moral status is actually quite problematic for me, and thus the origins of this thread. I have not decided myself what to think of the public nude.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I want my doctor looking at my body as something physical, something he will use his or her scientific tools to diagnose and treat. Sacredness is something deserving of a divine or religious respect. Whether sacred or profane, I don't see the choice or even the whole tone of the formulation as very pertinent to doctors, artists, naked bodies, sexuality, or photos of nudes.</p>

<p>We do seem to be going around in circles at this point and I don't think there's as much misunderstanding as healthy disagreement. I'm satisfied with what's been covered in this thread and think it will make us all think, a good result. Thanks for starting it.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Landrum...I'm missing something here.</p>

<p>WHY do you think "public nude" is "powerful" ? </p>

<p>Are you referring to police powers, your religious roots, your own physical responses?</p>

 

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>John, here is a portion of my original posting:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Such nudes often do not derive their power, appeal, or fascination from traditional aesthetic considerations, nor even from their capacity to evoke lust. (If they did that, they would be among the highest rated nudes on a popular and accessible site such as Photo.net, but they seldom are.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By using the "or" rather than "and" in the phrase "power, appeal, or fascination" above I meant to leave the definition of "power" open-ended. Is a photo powerful only in the sense of being (for some) fascinating? Is it powerful for having some kind of appeal (for some people)?</p>

<p>By being deliberately ambiguous at times, I have tried to approach this thread in such a way as to allow persons to frame the question in their own way so that they can have full latitude in answering it. This all goes back to my approach to teaching political theory and other related courses: I want students (in that context) to have full latitude to challenge my way of phrasing the question. The same applies here not to students but to posters.</p>

<p>Think of the question as being like a photo or a painting, John, wherein it typically does not matter so much what the artist' motives were. What is more interesting is what the viewer reads into the art. So it is, I think, in political philosophy and other branches of philosophy. I have only wanted to draw people out, not force them to answer the original question on my terms.</p>

<p>So redefine the question as you will, and then please answer your own version of the question, if you will. We would love to hear from you.</p>

<p>The question of what kind of "power" is involved (if any) came up some days back, and then again later in various incarnations, but I don't remember precisely where.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie--</p>

<p>I just realized that I wrote this response thinking that what John Kelly wrote above was a response from YOU to me and that YOU were asking me why I saw the public nude as powerful (I hadn't noticed that the post was from him). But I still think this is worth posting as a summary of my thoughts on the matter.</p>

<p>All along I've rejected the characterization of the public nude as powerful. I think you've been giving it too much significance. I thought it made for an interesting thread and love hearing people's opinions on it, but ultimately I always felt the premise of the thread was overstated. I gave the photographic examples I did, because I thought of them as examples of nudes that were not about power. These are quotes from my posts, consistently suggesting I don't relate to the power concept of the nude you've asserted:</p>

<p><em>"What's happening here, in my opinion, is that we are seeing representations of public nudity and being stimulated to philosophical thoughts about public nudity, shame, power, glory, etc. "</em></p>

<p><em>"I don't find anything that shows me an intention to say something about power or glory."</em></p>

<p>This is the best statement of my point of view from May 14 above, talking about my own experiences and take on photographing nudes and public nudes:</p>

<p><em>"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."</em></p>

<p>My contributions here, as I see them, were to convey an alternative to yours (though I think SOME pubic nudes are seeking to be a statement of power). I've been suggesting that nudes can be earthy, mundane, fun, personal, and individual. Oftentimes, they can be compelling and visually moving or appealing without being either powerful or glorious.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, I have noticed your masterful way of critiquing not so much my answers as my questions.</p>

<p>Then again, you obviously know the philosophical game and can play it very well. . . .</p>

<p>In my first line of this thread I said, "perhaps I am in trouble from the beginning simply for the title on this one." Yes, indeed, what do we even <em>mean</em> by "the power and the glory," if indeed we find either power or glory in the public nude?</p>

<p>This has been fun, sort of like a class where no one wants to leave at the end of the hour.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Landrum, You appear to have made assertions about "power" in the guise of asking questions ..which in turn seem to revolve around your own personal issues.</p>

<p>I think you're framing these looooong posts around your own reactions, which appear to involve unexamined assumptions (religious, perhaps...Kelly suggests RC, Kelley suggests Orange/Protestant). </p>

<p>Your statement, below, leaped out when I first looked at this thread:</p>

<p><strong>"I think that something significant is at stake here with regard to our psychological makeup--or our discontent with what passes for civilization."</strong></p>

<p>1) you believe public nudity is significant in some way.</p>

<p>2) you think the significance, in which you believe, is in "our psychological makeup" (as opposed to your own personal makeup)</p>

<p>3) you attribute mysterious power, as if it was a magical solvent, to the word "psychological."</p>

<p>4) wise-cracking "passes for civilization" says directly that there's another more real civilization elsewhere in your imagination. But there isn't one in any world outside your head, never has been...and "civilization" doesn't mean "better than what we have." Look it up. "Passes for civilization" seems to tell a tale of its own.</p>

<p>5) <strong>Examination of personal feelings and hangups can be helpful, but when one of us claims instead that his own "powerful" personal feelings are "ours" it is sometimes a defensive ploy...</strong></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Aw, come on, you know that I've been discussing both your premises and your conclusions, your questions and your answers all along. Sorry if it feels as if I was toying with you ("philosophical game"). That was not my intention.</p>

<p>Signing out for now.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"[W[ise-cracking 'passes for civilization' says directly that there's another more real civilization elsewhere in your imagination." --John Kelly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I had indeed just said that "I think that something significant is at stake here with regard to our psychological makeup--or our <strong>discontent</strong> with what passes for <strong>civilization.</strong> "</p>

<p>If it was wise-cracking, 'twas just a play on Freud's title, <em>Civilization and Its Discontents.</em> I am surprised that you missed the allusion. You read a lot of stuff into my words, real deep Freudian stuff. Man, I am mystified by your powers.</p>

<p>Fred, I was ribbing you. It has been a good exchange. Alas, 'twas also too good to last.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Lannie, you're being unnecessarily defensive. There's nothing wrong with your desire to talk about your own responses to public nudes.<br>

To my knowledge, Freud said nothing about "<strong>passing for civilization."</strong> He was a grownup, well educated in history as well as in his science.<br>

...but, if you know otherwise, please cite.<br>

I'm not well read in Freud. His ideas about dreamwork were interesting but didn't lead as far as they still might...on the other hand his "interpretations", even though bogus, may have been powerful when he imposed them on his women patients (women in particular). That's how religious influences, such as the "power" you've talked about, work when presented to impressionable audiences.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, you're being unnecessarily defensive. There's nothing wrong with your desire to talk about your own responses to public nudes. --John Kelly</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>I certainly hope not, John, because I have been commenting about the public nude for almost nine days now! </strong> In addition, as some like to say, "the internet is forever." That is, I am on public record, in a very verbose mood through most of my posts during that time, and perhaps too open and vulnerable, rather than too defensive.</p>

<p>In any case, I am not trying to be defensive, John. I simply have already responded to numerous questions very similar to yours in the course of this very long thread. I'm frankly ready to call it a day. I have no single thesis to advance here, with the exception of one offered at the beginning that I favor somewhat: "they [that is, portrayals of persons nude in public] challenge an entire social order, or possibly all social orders." My view is thus congruent up to a point with that of Brian Grossman.</p>

<p>I see the public nude (as manifested in Brian Grossman's work at least) as a kind of glorification of a social order in which persons do indeed throw off a lot of restraints and live freely, and perhaps according to Freud's "pleasure principle" in which nothing impedes the free expression of their sexuality. I think that any fascination that the <em><strong>public</strong> </em> nude has for many persons is simply a reflection of many persons' secret desire to live such a life--even if they can actually live it to any degree at all (as a practical matter) only in <strong><em>private</em> </strong> fantasies. (Paradoxical, no?) Even nudists do not try to live that way, after all, having rather strict rules governing sexual behavior. Grossman's nudes do not show the overt or explicit sexuality, but I think that they suggest or imply it. That is debatable, of course, as is almost every point made by anyone on this thread. Persons from another cultural tradition might see none of that in his nudes.</p>

<p>That is one take on the appeal of the public nude, and I invite you to peruse the thread at your leisure for others' opinions. I could spin out quite a number of other takes on it which I have entertained during the course of this thread, but my original posting still is the best summary statement of my view--without being either a condemnation or endorsement of the public nude, or of the social order that such a type of photography might be seen to imply <em>for many persons</em> (certainly not all).</p>

<p>Your questions and comments merit a better response, but I am tired and will close for now, except to say this: there are other ways of looking at Brian's (and others') photos of the public nude that emphasize something different from the free display of sexuality. One such way is to see persons living unencumbered by clothes, but otherwise constrained and self-disciplined to the point that they might be considered to be "spiritually clothed," to use a religious metaphor of which I am very fond. I think that I am fond of it because it suggests that persons might possibly be able to "sublimate" (oops, Freud again!) their sexuality and live a rather ordinary and prosaic life except for the fact that they just do not have any hang-ups about displayiing their bodies. This view has been defended by many here, including myself at times. I can argue many ways on these issues, as I am sure that you can as well.</p>

<p>As I said in at least two other places above, one considers the various interpretations, thrashes them out with one's friends, and then says "Who knows?!" and walks away, having resolved nothing except to admit at the end that one does not know the answer. One simply hopes that one understands the questions a bit better.</p>

<p>Thanks for seriously asking my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>