The Power and the Glory

jtk · May 19, 2009

Lannie, I enjoy extended discussion and argumentation...as you know. But I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit and expand upon your personal views. It's not an abstract "political philosophic" issue, it's carnal. IMO.

You've posted a number of prolix explanations for the "power" you personally experience in these nudes. IMO it'd be more interesting if you'd talk openly about what drives you to be so concerned with what seems to me to be routine...like enjoyment of wine or fresh air.

Is this a generational thing? Are you one of Gen X's modern Eisenhower Era II people?

Me, I'm still a creature of the Sixties (and seemingly the turn of the 20th century). I find nudity "powerful" in an erotic or admiration-of-physical fitness (or disgusting lack of fitness) sense. It's not a puzzle, not intellectually interesting to me. Different strokes I guess.

Beautiful images, such as Michaelangelo's sculpture of David, gain their beauty from an implied or directly indicated erotic core...IMO. I don't think that reduces their "artistic" power...I think their "artistic" power springs directly from eros in many instances, that sculpture and much of the work of Stieglitz for example. You seem uncomfortable with directness of that sort...why?

iancoxleigh · May 20, 2009

Right, so I have read (or skimmed) every post in this thread and it took me more than an hour to do so. It has been an interesting read to say the least.

For a long time I struggled to understand your position(s), Lannie, and I very much appreciate your most recent post as I feel I finally have a full grasp upon what your original point was. I feel I would like to add a number of points to this discussion.

***

First, I think it is useful to recognize the limitations you put on this discussion from the beginning. You said:

"Such nudes often do not derive their power, appeal, or fascination from traditional aesthetic considerations, nor even from their capacity to evoke lust."

</blockquote>

So, you allow (recognize?) that there may be public nude photography where aesthetic appeal IS the source of the appeal for the viewer. I can think here of Wynn Bullock's nudes in nature. Your statement also allows images of public nudes where the power and appeal of the image lies in the latent sexuality of the image.

You then posited that the remaining images of the public nude can derive their power from:

"a kind of glorification of a social order in which persons do indeed throw off a lot of restraints and live freely"

</blockquote>

or from the depiction of those who have divorced their sexuality from their nakedness and are comfortable in displaying their nudity with regard to sexuality (this I am more skeptical about, but shall let it pass for now).

So, thus far, I agree with your position. There are indeed a great many images of the nudes in public where the power or appeal of the image for the viewer lies in the flaunting of social order.

However, I feel I should offer some clarifications of my position.

1. I think there are photos of nudes in public where the power, appeal, or fascination for the viewer of the image does not have much (if anything) to do with the public nudity.

For example, in many of the images by Ryan McGinley linked to above, the nudity is entirely incidental. The given image would work and have a similar emotion impact (on this viewer at least) if the main subject was fully clothed. I feel the nudity in those images is present because that nudity is an underlying current connecting the various images into a cohesive collection to be shown together. I am sure I have seen other examples where there is a public nude, but the nudity is not the principle source of interest in the image.

2. I think there are photos of nudes in public where the power, appeal, or fascination for the viewer of the image lies in the nudity of the subject does not have do with aesthetic beauty, sexual desire, or with the flaunting of the conventional social order.

For example, a nude in public image could be about the connection between two figures despite their public location.

3. I think your original question also uses the word power in a couple of different ways. You seem to use it as a synonym for appeal and for fascination. However, I feel you have also implied that the nude public figure in photographs has a powerful quality.

I accept that is can have that quality. But, I do not think that a nude in public has a quality of power by default or that it is intrinsic in the subject matter.

4. I think the power of a photograph lies, to a much greater degree, in the response of the viewer rather than in the image itself. In this way, I think much of your position is a personal view rather than a universal 'truth'.

For example, I can think of many public nude photographs which I do not feel challenge a social order at all. But, perhaps this is because I do not share in your sense of social order and its conventions.

For example, I recently had a very heated discussion on chowhound about the merits of the social conventions around wearing suits to things like funerals, job interviews, or restaurants and whether wearing a suit showed respect and not wearing a suit was disrespectful. This became an animated and heated discussion wth several people vehemently arguing either position.

I get the impression that you and I would respond quite differently to encountering a nude person in public in real life in a variety of settings. Perhaps your social order is more easily or more thoroughly challenged by nudity than mine. This probably extends to a much more basic level too. For example, what nudity itself means to you and what nudity means to me probably differs.

5. I think this discussion have somehow neglected the importance of context. One nude woman in a mid-western USA supermarket aisle has a different meaning than many nude people together. Moreover, nude children, nude women, nude men, passively sitting nudes, actively engaged nudes and so on all have different meanings to the viewer. Only some of these would even slightly hint at the ideas of defying social order that you raised.

6. Lastly, in those images where I would agree with you that the purpose was to challenge the social order, that challenge can come in two very different ways.

First, the image itself can document such a challenge. For example, a nude in a place and a culture where nudes do not belong will articulate through the image itself a certain level of challenge to the generally accepted social constructs.

Second, the image can contain no such challenge yet the publication or use of the image can create such a challenge (intentionally or unintentionally on the part of the artist). For example, it can document nudity in a place where it is perfectly natural yet the publication challenges societal norms. I am thinking of the controversies surrounding images by Nan Goldin, Sally Mann, or Jock Sturges.

***

On a final note, I have never understood what you meant by 'glory'. Would you care to articulate your use of that term here?

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

But I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit and expand upon your personal views. --John Kelly

</blockquote>

John, are you out of your mind? I have been doing nothing else since May 11 on this very thread.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

On a final note, I have never understood what you meant by 'glory'. Would you care to articulate your use of that term here? --Ian Cox-Leigh

</blockquote>

Sorry, guys, I cannot start the thread over. As for "glory," here is the beginning of a section posted by me back on May 12 at 12:37 a.m. (above, way back, near the beginning):

The "glory" that was uppermost in my mind was the glory of the human form itself. . . .

</blockquote>

There is surely more to be said. So, let me hear from you guys . Rephrase and re-frame the questions and issues any way you like--and then address the issues as you see them.

My own views just are not that interesting or significant.

REVEAL YOURSELVES !

--Lannie

iancoxleigh · May 20, 2009

<ul>

<li>But I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit and expand upon your personal views. --John Kelly</li>

</ul>

--Lannie

John, are you out of your mind? I have been doing nothing else since May 11 on this very thread.

</blockquote>

Really?

Well, despite really trying to wrap my head around your position, I still can't quite see why you feel that nudes-in-public form any sort of cohesive group.You have posted many examples that you feel contain the sort of meaning that you initially posited. For the most part, I agree that the examples you have chosen do indeed contain the meanings you mentioned. However, you seem to take this further. From your original post and from many of your follow-up posts, you clearly seem to feel that there is something inherent in nudes-in-public images that lead them to have a shared effect on the viewer or a unity of meaning on at least some level. You certainly haven't seemed to accept any of the people (or their examples) who have expressed an opposing view on that point.

So, I really am curious as to this point: why did you feel that nudes-in-public formed a group that could be discussed as an entity? What is it about this subject that makes it homogeneous enough that all work in the subject shares similar reasons for its appeal?

For example, I don't think anyone would try and discuss landscapes in the way your OP discusses this genre. I think it is generally accepted that landscapes are appealing and generate audiences through a variety of means and with a wide variety of results. Why do you feel that nudes-in-public are different or more similar to each other? I don't and I think I made that position clear in my post.

Note: I'm open to hearing a response from anyone in agreement with the OP or the main thrust of that argument – not just you Lannie (I can understand if you're all talked out here).

***

The "glory" that was uppermost in my mind was the glory of the human form itself. . .

</blockquote>

Oh, I see. Well, I wouldn't be willing to accept that there is anything particularly glorious in the human form at all.

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

What is it about this subject that makes it homogeneous enough that all work in the subject shares similar reasons for its appeal? --Ian Cox-Leigh

</blockquote>

Is it homogeneous? Must there be a single reason for its appeal? (I hear you saying "No.") There might yet be some generalizations that could be made, Ian, but surely they would have to be qualified immediately as it became obvious that the genre is really quite complex.

To be quite honest, I never anticipated the range of perspectives, nor the complexity of the issues, in advance. I only anticipated that persons might want to re-frame the question as I put it in the original posting. I also suspect that we have only begun to scratch the surface with regard to the complexity of the various topics. There are many, many other issues that I have considered but not yet broached in this thread.

For example, is the "nude self-portrait" rightly conceived of as being in the genre of "public nude"? One's first reaction might be to say, "No, since it is taken in private." Upon reflection, however, there is something different in the nude self-portrait that is different from other nudes. Perhaps it is the discarding of any pretense at anonymity, as in the case of Amy Powers, former recipient of Photo of the Week--or at least I presume that that name was not a pseudonym. The fact is that I do not know, but Googling her name brings up nothing now, so who knows? If it was her name, however, then her photos were "public' in some sense. (Perhaps she is still shooting and even posting under another name. Who knows?)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=51959

Then there is the afore-mentioned "Julia von Lippe," in which case I know that the name is pseudonymous. Since she has not revealed her identity to the public at large, are her shots of herself examples of the "public nude"? I confess that I do not know the answers to these myriad questions:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1442954

In other words, the element of publicity is perhaps not merely about being seen in public, but perhaps (in some cases) revealing oneself in public--including perhaps revealing one's identity.

In other words, even the concept of the "public nude" has turned out to be problematic and controversial.

There was a lot of controversy at the outset of this thread as to whether this one by Brian "Beepy" Pawlowski might qualify as a "public nude." I think that in one sense it does, if only because she may be seen as practicing for a public performance, where she would be (I presume) clothed:

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/3251073">http://www.photo.net/photo/3251073</a>

In another sense it clearly was not shot in public.

So, it would appear that not only "power" and "glory" admit of many definitions and perspectives, but that the same might be said even more forcefully for the concept of the "public nude."

Again, I had no idea of the complexity of the issues that would be raised when I started this thread over nine days ago.

Even the concept of "nude" is perhaps not as simple or obvious as it appears. One may, after all, sometimes reveal more about oneself through words than through photos. In such a case,"how naked go the sometimes nude," in the immortal words of Robert Graves.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

I am surprised that no one has called me on the literary and biblical allusions in the title of this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_and_the_Glory

Have I profaned the glory of God by using a portion of the Lord's Prayer to name this thread?

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

On top of that issue is that I have also made a "musical allusion" to a title used by Phil Ochs for what he saw as his finest piece of song-writing, in which he offered a possible alternative national anthem to our existing "war anthem":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_and_the_Glory

Long live Phil Ochs, who killed himself in 1976 in his mid-thirties. Stars that shine so brightly in the firmament often do not burn for long. I even remember one title somewhere (about something, I forget what): Was Jesus a Suicide? What about Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi, or Socrates?

Long live Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison, while I am at it. . . .

But I am drifting far from the topic, no?

Perhaps not so far: What all of the above did was to live very public lives, revealing themselves right down to their very souls. Perhaps they were the most naked, most vulnerable of all of us.

And they were unashamed.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

Then there is this one:

or this one:

http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Altars/Pieta/Pieta.htm

and even this one:

http://www.dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2733

--Lannie

jtk · May 20, 2009

Lannie, all those links and references, along with the incredible length and confusion of your writing, combine to suggest that something personally sensitive is being hidden.

Saying "My own views just are not that interesting or significant" seems intended to divert attention from exactly those views...perhaps from an obsession.

I think it'd be interesting if you shared your own feelings and belief history, attempting clear, direct writing. Perhaps that clarity would lead to some strong photographs.

May I suggest: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X">http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X</a>

fate_faith_change_chains · May 20, 2009

' Power ', ' Glory ',... Bible-esque words, perhaps masqueraded to be revelations about the nudes they describe, when those nudes ( any ) can do without any revelation at all, don't need to be disclosed for there's nothing to disclose, not through mind nor matter. Or at least there shouldn't be, wouldn't that be perfect...

About some music & lyrics, beautifully visual and photographic :

" I dreamed about you baby, it was just the other night. Most of you was naked, but some of you was light "

Waiting For The Miracle, Leonard Cohen

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

' Power ', ' Glory ',... Bible-esque words, perhaps masqueraded to be revelations about the nudes they describe. . . . --Phylo Dayrin

</blockquote>

Actually, Phylo, I had not really thought about "the power and the glory" as being from the Lord's Prayer until I looked up the phrase in Wikipedia this morning, probably around nine a.m.

John, do yourself and the rest of us a big favor and get a life. No one gives a flip about your evaluations of persons , just the topic(s) of the thread. If you cannot offer something constructive or new on the issues , then please get off the thread.

As for Strunk and White, you might be interested in this:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/happy-birthday-strunk-and-white/

--Lannie

saskphotog · May 20, 2009

Wow. I had to check the titile of this forum to make sure I hadn't stumbled into the Photographer Therapy forum.

" A man cannot speak but he judges himself." - Emerson (I think).

We all reveal ourselves, naked, to anyone who actually hears us. All of us.

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

Well said, Larry. I think that that is why writing on sensitive topics is always such a risky enterprise, psychologically and socially speaking. We know that we are going to be evaluated by what we say or write, and we know that much of it will be negative.

I know no other way to proceed in such hazardous waters than to try to keep rowing fast enough to leave the sharks behind.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

Here is a nice photo with commentary by a woman for a change, our own beloved Pnina Evental:

http://www.photo.net/photo/9219074

Perhaps she will have more to say after she returns from her trip. Since English is not her first language, she is having trouble slogging through all this.

--Lannie

jtk · May 20, 2009

"...writing on sensitive topics is always such a risky enterprise, psychologically and socially speaking. We know that we are going to be evaluated by what we say or write, and we know that much of it will be negative." - Landrum Kelly

Did anybody here say anything "negative" about a "sensitive" topic?

LK took no "risk" and I have not "evaluated" anything beyond the quality of his writing (B-). Several of us evidently read his words more carefully than he'd expected, but that's life in the fast lane.

While some did disagree, nobody said anything "negative" about the "power" LK personally reports in photographs of public nudity.

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

"Lannie, all those links and references, along with the incredible length and confusion of your writing, combine to suggest that something personally sensitive is being hidden. Saying 'My own views just are not that interesting or significant' seems intended to divert attention from exactly those views...perhaps from an obsession." --John Kelly

</blockquote>

John, it would appear that your memory is quite short.

Can you bring yourself to address the issues raised in the thread rather than speculate on my possible "obsession," or presume that something "personally sensitive is being hidden," much less suggest that my strategies for moving beyond your ad hominem remarks are "intended to divert attention from exactly those views."

I said it before and I will say it again: please address the issues or get off the thread. The thread is not about me or my presumed psychopathology, John.

This is two requests that I have made. Malicious and defamatory remarks will not be tolerated on Photo.net anymore than they will in the larger society. Once more, if you cannot direct your attention to the issues and refrain from the ad hominem remarks, then, in my opinion, you should exit the thread, the forum, and possibly the site--permanently.

By the way, what does " life in the fast lane" mean in your very last post?

--Lannie

iliafarniev · May 20, 2009

The guy is so tough I think I will better joint him before it's too late.

Khm..

There is valueable book on subject related issues I can recommend: The Boby. Photoworks of the human form. William A. Ewing. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-27781-8. Offers structured and balanced overview of the subject thorough the times, places as well as different perspectives.

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

The "glory" that was uppermost in my mind was the glory of the human form itself. . . --Landrum Kelly

</blockquote>

Oh, I see. Well, I wouldn't be willing to accept that there is anything particularly glorious in the human form at all. --Ian Cox-Leigh

</blockquote>

It surprises me to hear you say that, Ian. Many persons have exalted the human form as the most worthy and sublime artistic subject. I have never heard such a dismissive tone with regard to its glory qua beauty--and I think that "glory" in the context of this thread has often (but not always) been about beauty.

--Lannie

iancoxleigh · May 20, 2009

I think that there are a nearly infinite number of things on this planet (and beyond) that are far more interesting and far more beautiful than the human form. If I weren't shaped like a human, and interacted with humans, I'm not sure I'd find much interest in human subjects in art at all.

As it is, I am interested in human subjects in art when they are used to create an emotional connection between me and subject or their situation, when they convey a 'truth' about the human condition (poverty, struggle, etc. . .), or when the human form has been simplified or abstracted into pleasing geometries.

An inconsequential shot of a mountain at sunset is still beautiful even if it evinces no further emotional or intellectual consideration. A nude standing in a nondescript location and offering no further emotional or intellectual consideration is entirely boring and uninteresting for me.

fate_faith_change_chains · May 20, 2009

Indeed, the human body isn't glorifying at all, not any more than a cockroach is, it's just functional and that's all there is to it. Ofcourse I'm not leveling the human body, being the vessel of the soul, ( and which can reveal to us a question of lust and temptation, and all sorts of consideration) to that of a cockroach...but universally speaking, and in the endlessness of all things, one isn't more about glory than another. Realising this, however hard, might set one free.

lonebearimages · May 20, 2009

I am in the camp of "Why ask the question?" Yes, Mallory said, "Because it is there..." but so what? Why do I like filet mignon on the grill? I just do. All in all, I am with Ian Cox-Leigh, I'll take a landscape at sunrise or sunset anytime, or a cat sitting on a chair, or a cow in a field. Why? Because it is what I like. Enough pontificating, enough said. Cheers! Chris

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

Well, this is certainly a new twist on the thread--and three of you in a row!

I think I see a trend developing here. Maybe it has something to do with the recession. . . .

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 20, 2009

John Peri has posted a couple of new ones that fit the criteria set forth at the beginning of the thread, I think.

http://www.photo.net/photo/9207174&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photo/9212761

I personally do not find these as compelling as some of his others--perhaps it is the hose. I am not sure. I get no sense of her being free or liberated, as I do in some of his others. Maybe a sense of freedom is indeed what piques my interest in the public nude after all--well, one element, at least.

I think that we are typically less analytical with the nude than we ought to be. The appeal of the nude (public or private) is surely not merely about sensuality.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 21, 2009

I just realized that I have probably crossed over a new threshold (for me) in my last posting, from philosophical issues to technical ones. On the other hand, I think that the two types of consideration, although factorable, are closely related, in some cases more than others.

The Peri nude of the woman crouching in the hotel hallway, for example, gives a very different effect from the one of the same model standing up and smoking a cigarette. One looks like a frightened animal, the other as bold as the most brazen street-walker. (Sorry, John. Perhaps that is an unfortunate comparison.) Yet, they are of the same woman in the same hallway, surely made within minutes of one another. Has Peri deliberately tried to evoke different emotions with the two differing poses (and expressions), or was that simply an accident? Only John Peri can tell us that.

In any case, what we are left with is two very, very diferent photos of the same person in the same location--in the same state of undress.

This is new analytical territory for me, and I find it very interesting--and I am quite sure that it is not solely because of the sensual appeal of the nude, although that is surely a part of it. With all due respect to Phylo (four posts above), the same analysis applied to a cockroach simply would not be of interest--and the reason is very simple: there is precious little beauty in the cockroach, and that is putting it mildly.

Is that simply because I am hard-wired to be attracted to the woman, or is it because of some objective criterion (or criteria) of beauty in the one case but not the other? I do not know.

--Lannie

Sign In

The Power and the Glory

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in