The Power and the Glory, Part II (see last May for Part I)

don_essedi · April 24, 2010

Rebecca, Zoe and Julie

Thanks.

Landrum Kelly · April 24, 2010

Anyone who cannot quite get enough of the bickering on this thread can always go back and get more on the original version, which ended last June.

<a href="../philosophy-of-photography-forum/00TK0V">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00TK0V</a>

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · April 24, 2010

Lannie, I hope you realize how much you, yourself, are being raked over the coals here for "the power and the glory" wording you initiated. And, by the way, though I don't recommend anyone reading that other thread, I'm sure you'll remember what a hard time I gave you for starting the thread that way back then. It's one of the reasons I didn't go into it this time, preferring not to rehash old business. But I doubt, even had some read my own brutal critique of "power and glory", it would have made a difference, since my dick has cast its shadow over my words here anyway.

mizore · April 24, 2010

Fred, see your post about how an educated person, a true artist, would know that the Power and the Glory were Greek terms referring to esthetic principles. And don't bother to email me and I won't bother to email you.

You're not a "good person." There are no "bad people" either. There are just people, but some of them are male and some of them are female. Wanting males to be seen as free and unique individuals, well, sorry, guys can be guys at times, straight and gay.

You are insensitive to how women feel about topics like this, or why at least some women get a bit annoyed with men whose favorite women artists were self-mutilating or suicidal or geishas with patrons or some even more famous male artist's wife. I've seen so much of this in my life. The individuals calling the men out don't agree on the specifics (I write literary s.f. porn; Zoe does art nudes; Julie shoots birds and makes collages), but we're clear that the questions asked were, at best, expressions of a fabulous sort of staggering cluelessness. "Let's ask the women why they don't photograph nude males."

None of you had a clue? Honestly?

You've got individuals who are radically different, who made very different life choices, agreeing with each other that the topic turned fairly creepy fairly fast (not as creepy as the earlier thread). I don't even believe the feminist cliche that women cooperate; men compete. If the three of us agree on something, you guys are the ones who need to figure this out. Zoe gave you some urls. Julie gave you some urls. I told you to look at what you said.

Personally, I think if any of the guys wants more women in this forum, it's because they expect that women will be wonderful little handmaidens flattered by cliched attention that's actually quite condescending ("you remind me of students," "it's wonderful and scary to jump into a new creative phase," etc., etc.).

Like Julie, I don't really think there's more for me to discuss. If men can't get this by now, it's because they don't want to get it.

Landrum Kelly · April 24, 2010

Thanks for writing, Fred. As I said way back then, I really never thought of either Graham Greene or the Lord's Prayer when choosing the title, notwithstanding the biblical origins of the phrase. I had (in the spring of 2009) been listening to a Phil Ochs song of the same title, and it stuck in my mind. It was quite a patriotic song, but in a benign sense of "patriotic"without all the military bombast of the "Star-spangled Banner": "This is a land full of power and glory, beauty that words cannot recall. . . ."

So, in the context of that line by Ochs, nudity was really for me ultimately about beauty--and the power that beauty has over us, quite apart from the power that sex has over us, although they are very difficult to factor out in the nude, and I would not want to bother to try on this thread, nor always in life. Sex and nudity are certainly conceptually distinct. Surely everyone can agree on that, even those who insist tht persons always look at nudes for sexual gratification (a point of view that I would still hotly contest).

All of this is related to our last point of contention on that May, 2009 thread. As you will recall, I had said that questions of sexual ethics were the most compelling of all, and you correctly reminded me of genocide, war, etc. The point, however, was that sexual ethics broadly defined to include all choices and sexual issues involving romance do hit us as hard as, or even harder at times, than those dealing with life itself. Thus do we hear of persons committing murder or suicide over failed romances. I offer these few remarks not to re-open that discussion so much as to try to explain myself, since you made some powerful points. I am sorry that the original thread was closed before we worked through our differences.

In any case, it is interesting to see what tends to flare up as a point of contention on a thread. One can never predict that, and especially not when such controversial issues are being discussed.

As for the question of this thread, I did go back and look at the Jim Phelps folder, and it occurred to me to compare these photos of the same model:

<a href="../photo/10535613">http://www.photo.net/photo/10535613</a>

<a href="../photo/10522661">http://www.photo.net/photo/10522661</a>

<a href="../photo/8937273">http://www.photo.net/photo/8937273</a>

The last shows the least (in terms of the most commonly ogled body parts) but is the most "naked" of these various nudes to me--but perceptions of nakedness are very subjective, and not everyone would agree.

I do think that the proximity of the model in the last photo above is a factor in her appearing more naked, combined wtih her air of casual insouciance that I have previously mentioned. She appears literally in the face (and almost in the arms) of the photographer or the viewer, suggesting that even physical distance can play a role in perceptions of nakedness. As for the first two photos linked above, if they were taken or processed in B&W, they would likely appear even less naked to my eye. There are other variables that affect perception, but these come immediately to mind. None of this is to suggest that Jim Phelps had anything like my thoughts in mind while making or processing the photos.

I would tentatively conclude that the fine art nude is often portrayed in certain ways for a reason: a sense of psychological distance, which allows for a greater opportunity to appreciate a work esthetically rather than "merely" sensually or sexually. The fine art nude is thus typically (1) done in black and white, (2) done with the model not looking at the artist (the examples of the two Manet paintings being powerful counter-examples), (3) done with a lack of expression or even lack of "attitude" on the part of the model, and (4) done with a sense of some physical distance in many cases. There are many possible reasons for the use of these techniques in portraying the fine art nude, but one reason might be that there are fewer distractions when models are portrayed in such a manner--distractions which can tend to move one back in the direction of sexual interest. That potentiality for further sexual interest and attention (unwanted or not) is always there, of course, and not merely for the nude model. (To Julie I would suggest that even the chicken in a bathing suit--and not merely a plucked one--might make one think of "dinner." The idea of "devouring" a woman with one's eyes or "undressing her with one's eyes" comes to mind. It is not hard to see why women often are not sure whether they are being viewed as potential prey of one sort or another. Clothes are in any case frail armor against such threats, I fear, and no man with any imagination is much deterred by mere textile barriers, which in many cases are designed to accentuate that which is sexually interesting, not designed at all, that is, to cover it up.)

As for this thread in general, I have (most of the time) enjoyed the various digressions, but the original question is still with me. I do think that it is a legitimate question for anyone pondering the artistic value of the nude.

I also want to reaffirm that I think that we do well to consider what contributes to the appreciation of the nude as an art form--which is not to make any claim that my own observations are correct. Art without the nude would have lost something wonderful, powerful, and, yes, even glorious, at least to my mind. The question for me is how we keep the portrayal and perception of the nude on the high road--but that last point reflects my continuing interest in the ethics of sexuality, as well as my own belief systems and acculturation.

Thanks again for writing. If I do not respond to you or other who write back, it means that I am going to try to escape this computer screen for most of the rest of the weekend.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · April 24, 2010

"a sense of psychological distance, which allows for a greater opportunity to appreciate a work esthetically rather than "merely" sensually or sexually." --Lannie

Lannie, you and I have always had different views about what is aesthetic. The notion that "psychological distance . . . allows for a greater opportunity to appreciate a work aesthetically" may have been posed by some historic thinkers, but it's foreign to my own way of appreciating works of art or photographs, fine art nudes or otherwise.

JPPhoto1664880217 · April 24, 2010

Lannie,

I take issue with the statement that fine art nudes are typically done in black and white.

This was true of all fine art photography up until the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when color film was finally developed to the point it could accurately reproduce color. After this, it started to develop (and is still developing) as a fine art medium (as exemplified by the Eagleston color Exhibit at the MOMA in the mid 1970’s). Color has been used by several fine art nude photographers in the last 20 years, and it’s use is growing. One should recall that the color fine art nude has been around since the renaissance (see for example "La maja desnuda" by Goya in the Prado , “Venus and Adonis” by Vecellio, and “Venus and the Lute Player” by Titian).

I would also suggest that you should define what you mean by more “naked”. Do you mean that the image/model is more sexual/erotic?

Jim Phelps

Norma Desmond · April 24, 2010

Rebecca, thanks for supplying the quote. It shows me that you did in fact misunderstand what I said. Here's the quote, which was clearly in response to your comment on Josh's use of the word "beauty."

"Any studied person, academic or aesthetic, artist, Greek scholar, or just well read, knows that when one speaks of 'great beauty' that is different than what you are taking to be the much more mundane and superficial use where it would refer to a beautiful person." --Rebecca

This can't be read as my questioning your taste. It's about your pinning a very superficial understanding of the word "beauty" onto Josh's use of the word.

I also didn't question your taste around Nan Goldin or Yoko Ono. I've spoken to many people who I am not surprised don't like their work at all. I completely understand. I'd be surprised if most people liked their stuff. The only thing I questioned you about were your projections about why Yoko Ono got together with John Lennon. That's not about taste.

inoneeye · April 24, 2010

Lannie, In the spirit of your original post, as i see it(i gave no thought to the baggage attached to 'power and glory'. words I like. Phil Ochs I like.) I believed the question would obscure the answer(s). I finally took some time to graze the original post of last May. I was lazy and avoided it before posting here. For those of us that picked it up here I think we were not privy to the amount of territory and baggage that may have carried over. It does skew my perception of some of the posts here. Anyway I will continue from the face of what I read here.

"...the original question is still with me." I think you and others have covered , uncovered many of the ingredients that go into the recipe. The final product is all of the above. The formula may be elusive and even moreso if we seek consensus. You have mapped out some of the elements that move you to discern naked from 'fine art nude'. I believe they are insightful observations. Of course there are so many exceptions that it becomes very convoluted. even difficult to acknowledge without qualifications. Even suggesting a segregation of naked and art nude is problematic for me. but in the spirit of common ground with those who would separate the labels I can understand that there is often a distinction used. Many of the reasons to categorize naked and fine art nude are so within ourselves individually that formulas for creation or understanding of a fine art nude or naked photo are very elusive. Go generic? Go with what was or is generally acceptable? Or as you are Lannie, begin to question and comprehend the differences for ourselves and our viewers. I appreciate that. The answer may lie in the details of the nuts and bolts but more I think in the self reflection as you obviously are being generous with. What makes us as individuals feel naked 'naked to the world'. When I mentioned giving over my camera to a model or anyone to photograph me (and the result is rarely how I see myself and never naked) without clothes they most often create something much more flattering than i do when I photograph myself. When I photograph myself I appear more naked .... vulnerable and or revelatory. At what point do we began to feel sexual stirrings when viewing a nude or feeling repelled. I know when I do, I know from experience when many viewers will. When does sensual become sexual? Has a line been crossed at that point? can't be 'art' once that line is crossed. and as for being naked I also know when I feel someone is naked but what a foggy line that often is. and of course some photos straddle the line. viewers choice. Fred has a photo of a man taking a smoke break on the roof. The guy is so naked and it is clearly an art nude in my eye. Not intentionally pretty or flattering but I find it beautiful and powerful. Which category does it belong to? snapshot. . fine art nude. middle age naked man contemporary study. gentle or abrasive or ineffectual? Oh the power and glory of it. all. But the question of what makes it naked is fairly easy to gleen imo. But are we starting on the same page? It's in color, no eye contact, some physical distance. and yet it is in the details. next time those details are going to add up differently. What are commonly labeled 'Art nudes' are generally (imo) more flattering to the model and to my eye generic. 'Naked'(?) photos tend to delve deeper into what makes this person an individual or what it means to be human including being what we may consider flaws. Expose... and in doing so the photographer may risk taking advantage of the individual model, or even the gender. That observation, my observation is rooted when I adhere to what I have found to be the common usage of the labels. Exceptions abound and I don't abide, subscribe to that for myself (only when i consider viewers response). I am much more liberal in label usage in front of or behind the camera and as a viewer. I like to often create naked photographs with or without clothes in the equation. I know we are only discussing being without clothes tho. As I just made obvious, art nudes and naked photos can be very different for me than others. Lannie you have interestingly provided a good insight into the details of your take on the differences. For me the details are of a nature that until weighed against the final image the answer is far to elusive. Even obscured by the question for many. I would prefer not to use Jim Phelps photos even with his permission because I don't find the significant difference you have. Feel free reach into my gallery for photo examples. I am comfortable in dissecting the details of a photo as being naked... or less naked.

Landrum Kelly · April 24, 2010

"vulnerable and or revelatory" --Josh Dunham Wood

</blockquote>

Josh, your two words are remarkably close to the two terms that were running through my mind when trying to define "naked" after Jim Phelps posted just above. I had been thinking "revealing and vulnerable."

Before I go further in this vein, however, please remember that I went back to Jim's work to find other examples of pictures of the very same model: Rebecca. That has not given me the best or largest data base for testing perceptions, even my own, but it gave me one constant: the model was the same in all three pictures. If I perceived her as more or less "revealing and vulnerable" in one photo than another, why would I do so? Has something in her pose, demeanor, or expression changed from photo to photo? Has something of a technical nature (distance, color v. black and white, soft focus, DOF, etc.) also changed? Has something in myself (fatigue, hormone levels, dullness, insightfulness) changed? Clearly this is complicated territory, and I recognized all too well at the beginning that the two words "nude" and "naked" were not quite going to support the weight that might be placed upon them--but I stayed with them because I assumed that Robert Graves was onto something in his poem "The Naked and the Nude." Thus did I cast my first feeble reflections into the public domain of a forum, since it was clear that my own conceptualization of the intellectual problem was either flawed or inadequate, or both. I am glad that at least a few of you can see it as a genuine intellectual problem, not an existential dilemma or sign of depravity or manifestation of the threatening "male gaze." I expected to be misunderstood, of course, all the more because I was not clear--could not be clear, given my own level of understanding or misunderstanding. As a social theorist, I have thought a great deal about cultural and ethical relavitism, but until I saw the picture of Rebecca anew for the first time in months did it occur to me to question why I perceived her as I did. She was naked, but she was not naked--compared to other pictures. She was a nude, but she (in that shot) could also have been a person in a swimsuit. At one moment she was just a pretty girl sitting there. The next moment she was quite obviously inviting. What was obvious was that my own perceptions moved around too much to be able to come up with much that had predictive or explanatory value. There was no sense of formality and distance, such as one finds in the nude as characterized by Robert Graves in "The Naked and the Nude."

Herein lay the original dilemma, or perhaps it is more of a paradox: the original photo of Rebecca (linked at the outset) that I found most revealing and vulnerable of the three did not in fact meet the criterion of "revealing" in the sense of showing more breasts, buttocks, etc. Nor did she appear particularly psychologically vulnerable in the original shot--she was, after all, quite bold in her look into the camera. At the same time, I am not sure that I had any greater sense of her being more "sexy" or "erotic" in that shot than in others.

All of that is as much as to admit that the answers are not only elusive, but that the questions are as well. My own reactions have moved around sufficiently to indicate to me that our varying personal perceptions vary depending on our own moods more than on what is actually displayed in the photos. I hate to retreat into subjectivism in such a way, but the fact is that it turned out to be subjective perceptions that I have been most concerned with--and equally at a loss to understand.

I will also be the first to confess that my brief listing of characteristics of the nude qua nude is both inadequate and inaccurate. There is an element of truth in saying that "black and white conveys more social or emotional distance than color," I suppose, but at that point one is as much as admitting that one has probably been talking more about formality v. informality than about nudity v. nakedness (which was hardly ever meant to be a dichotomy in the first place--they are hardly opposites, after all).

Wittgenstein's remarks on "family resemblances" in language and meaning also came to mind when I tried to nail down meanings of words having such potentially great erotic force. How much more problematic meaning is when one is talking of perceptions, which vary from person to person and within the same person across time!

There are certainly words that might have erotic connotations that are not totally irrelevant to the conversation, such as "open," "appealing," "approchable," and the like. The formal nude to me, for example, is not particularly approachable. Rebecca sitting on the table with glasses and lip gloss was approachable--whether sexually or socially. She even seemed "friendlier," if that makes any sense.

I did peruse your own photos and they are beautifully done. For showing strongly contrasting conceptions they might have been better, but I chose to go back to Rebecca because I could expect more nuanced variations in my own perceptions when staying with one model.

In any case, none of the concepts or typologies or definitions that I have come up with seems up to the task. I expected the problem to be redefined, but not necessarily hijacked into an assault on males for looking at women or for asking penetrating (gasp!) questions: persons bring the baggage that has been imporant in their own lives into such conversations. I am not blasting the feminists. I am simply sayiing that I did not foresee that tack being taken, if only because it never had in the much longer run of the original and more controversial "The Power and the Glory" thread of last May and June, which ran for weeks before being closed.

It came to me finally that what has driven me to post twice on related topics under the same essential title is not only a continuing quandary about the power of the nude image over most (or at least many) of us, but also why there are some persons and some cultures where that does not seem to be so obviously the case: they are remarkly blasé about such matters in a way that I can never be.

I will close this unfortunate post rather than ramble on this fashion, since by now I presume that you get the idea: I haven't the foggiest idea what the answer is to my own question. I am still struggling with the question--and just now getting a glimmer as to what made me want to start asking these questions in the first place last May.

Jim, if you are reading, I hope that I have addressed your questions as well.

--Lannie

inoneeye · April 24, 2010

"...For showing strongly contrasting conceptions they (my nudes, josh ) might have been better, but I chose to go back to Rebecca because I could expect more nuanced variations in my own perceptions when staying with one model." good distinction Lannie. "In any case, none of the concepts or typologies or definitions that I have come up with seems up to the task." Perhaps exploring the obvious would have merit. I often consider the obvious, blatancy or the cliche on the road to developing and refining my take on nuance. If you think that as a further exploration that looking at strong contrasts might be of interest and informative for considering nuance I would be happy to arrange my nudes by model. Of the 20ish nudes I have posted there are 6 models (and a nude mannequin) - 4 models are presented 3 to 6 times ea. I know you're busy Lannie but the offer is good anytime...

Norma Desmond · April 24, 2010

Lannie and Josh, thanks for getting back to it.

The viewer's subjective response comes up often. No matter how much I understand this, I come back to the photographer as the one who puts it out there. The photographer has tools, symbols, effects, communicative gestures at his disposal. These are significant to a viewer's reaction.

I don't include penises in my photos lightly. I have taken many more pictures of nude/naked men without showing a penis in the final photo. As strong a symbol as a penis can be in the photo, there's also a kind of vulnerability the exposed penis may create that often, for me, is limited to the shooting, never intended to be seen by the viewer. In those cases, a different kind of vulnerability may be evident in the photo. It may start with the penis but end up as a facial expression in what becomes just a bust shot. The viewer is not privy to all the information available at the time of shooting and that can allow for a less literal and, therefore, more metaphorical and possibly richer emotional reaction to what the viewer actually does get to see in the photograph.

Often, too much emphasis is given to the viewer's subjectivity. The photographer has more of an impact than many viewers give him/her credit for. Even when the ultimate reaction feels subjective and personal, the immediate response to the photo is often set because of choices a photographer has made.

I often feel more responsibility when shooting nudes than when shooting other type photos. That, for me, provides an edge. There are lines that can be crossed or that I probably wouldn't cross and I can play with those lines. I tempt myself.

We haven't talked about desire and temptation much. I am often motivated by each and my subjects often express such motivations, even when the result is a type of "fine art nude". Having posed naked for photographs on several occasions, I can tell you I don't mind feeling like or seeming to others like a piece of meat. Sometimes (only sometimes) it happens. Hitchcock claimed his actors and actresses were cattle. I understand his point, from both photographer's point of view and subject's point of view. When I attended an interview with Tippi Hedren (The Birds, Marnie), she recalled being none-too-thrilled with Hitchcock's advances toward and treatment of her. She also recognized his genius and the part she and the other actors played in that.

These ethical questions are not easy to answer. Was Hitchcock "bad"? Being "a good person" came up in this thread earlier. I think some "badness" can creep into nude/naked art and I think some badness is blatant and deplorable. There are all kinds of judgments made from within and without, by the artists, the subjects, and the viewer. I expect that neither my subjects nor I are terribly wholesome, in a traditional way. I celebrate that. It's why some of the connotations of the word "glory" bother me in this context. Sure, my body and the bodies of my subjects are a temple. I can feel that palpably. And then I can turn around and in a moment's notice feel those same bodies writhing in a Boschlike orgy or lying bleeding in the streets . . . naked, tattered, and exposed.

inoneeye · April 24, 2010

S J Goffredi , Apr 23, 2010; 11:03 a.m. "I think therefore, the reason some nudes appear more naked is due to the level of

intimacy and discomfort we feel when viewing the image" - "The voyeristic sensation can be uncomfortable and therefore we

become more aware of the nudity. This is different from the arrousal from the sexual stimuli of the image, though for some the

two become interwoven."

.

Very solid points SJ.

intimacy, privacy, comfort level and voyeurism are often part of the equation in my take of the differences and my

considerations of applying a label. But also part of where the power for expression finds root.

Landrum Kelly · April 25, 2010

Fred, the question that I raised was about perception, not about how to evoke (or avoid evoking) a certain reaction in the viewer as the photographer. It is, after all, not a great leap from being aware of one's power as a photographer to being tempted to use that power in a potentially manipulative way--none of which is to suggest that you are trying to manipulate the viewer through your own photography. I understand that you are still concerned with perception as well:

The viewer's subjective response comes up often. No matter how much I understand this, I come back to the photographer as the one who puts it out there. . . . I often feel more responsibility when shooting nudes than when shooting other type photos. That, for me, provides an edge. There are lines that can be crossed or that I probably wouldn't cross and I can play with those lines. (Emphasis supplied.)

</blockquote>

Fred, those remarks in and of themselves do not sound in the least manipulative. Indeed, I do get a strong sense of ethical responsibility in your work. That is admirable, but my remarks are not about your responsibility or lack thereof, but about certain possible differences between some of your shots and my less intimate or even non-intimate shots of old houses, landscapes, etc. I can at best convey my nostalgia over the past when I see old houses in disrepair, or my awe at the power and majesty of nature or nature's God--and conceivably some sense of spirituality and transcendence that one can feel when in the middle of a wilderness experience. In general, however, there is no particular emotion that I am trying to evoke (or convey) through my work. As I have had to concede in discussions on long-ago threads, photographing nature is not about primarily (if at all) about intimacy, or at least not the kind of intimacy that you seek to convey and evoke in your portraiture.

In other words, when I shoot my traditional (admittedly more prosaic) subjects, especially those that are in or tend toward nature photography or toward old houses (which are quickly going back toward nature), I fortunately do not have to think about the viewer's response. There are very few if any ethical quandaries to be faced when doing that kind of work. I simply offer my own vision of what is beautiful or interesting, and I am pleased to share it with others who may or may not share my own perception. I like to see cracks appearing in sidewalks, even to see the grass pushing up in those cracks, or to see the roots of a tree slowly destroying that sidewalk--out of love of nature, not out of any love of destruction. I love old houses in disrepair, not just out of nostalgia for the past, but in anticipation of the imminent triumph of nature over "civilization" once again. The romantic in me glories in the return to nature, and in the enduring power of nature in comparison with the temporal nature of all human edifices.

I think also that what there is of "glory" in the nude is likewise about the glory of nature. Yet here I am engaged in this most artificial of exercises: photography. I should be out hiking through the mountains. But again I digress. . . .

The point is that I shoot primarily to please myself, even though I do want to share what I see with others--and I enjoy their feedback. I had assumed that the same considerations applied to those who did figure studies/nudes; that is, that they do photography to please their own eye. I am still assuming that most do. What you are saying, Fred, suggests the possibility that a very different approach to deciding what goes into the photo inevitably arises when one does figure studies--or any kind of photography where one may in fact evoke a strong sense of intimacy or other emotional response in the viewer. Yes, I know that the photographer has some obvious power, but what I think that I might be hearing is more awareness on your part of the control (frightful word) that you can or could exercise through your role as photographer. Perhaps I have misread, or read something into your remark that is not there. In any case, none of this is by way of criticizing your own work. I am simply registering my surprise at your remark quoted above: "The viewer's subjective response comes up often. No matter how much I understand this, I come back to the photographer as the one who puts it out there. . . . " I am not so much challenging the last part, set off in italics. I am simply surprised by it, by how emphatic and absolute it sounds, as one can be surprised by a sudden insight, and it occurs to me to wonder where it may lead once one has recognized the power that one presumably wields as photographer, on your view. I do not have a sense of such power in my own work. So be it.

From what you are saying, I am assuming that figure studies and some portraiture put you much more consciously in consideration of the impact of your photos on others--sometimes not to offend them, more often to think about whether you are conveying your own sense of intimacy to the viewer. I am basing that statement on your previous writings about intimacy on this thread, as well as your existing thread on the ethics of photography.

In the case of a nude, whether by Jim Phelps or Helmut Newton, I am beginning to get a glimmer of potentialities that I had not imagined--for photographers. (Porn is quite another thing. Even I have long ago seen that porn clearly is intended, even engineered, to evoke a particular response, a powerful visceral one--typically for commercial purposes. Porn to me is about what I can only call an attempt at "soul control.") I frankly had not thought about the simple (and dare I say "wholesome"?) nude in general as trying to do the same thing, nor about the degree of power of the photographer in trying to evoke a response from the viewer. I had, as I said, simply imagined that those who did figure studies were sharing their conceptions of the beautiful or the merely interesting. The nudes that I like typically have a very wholesome quality. If they do not, I quickly turn the page--well, usually, anyway. I am human and am not here to lobby for sainthood. Yet again, however, I digress, and I do not want to get into it with the feminists who insist that there is nothing wholesome about nude photography--or about viewing the artistic nude, whether in painting or in photography. Nor do I care to duke it out with them about the purity of my motives. My motives can be--and are--all over the place, both in what I view, and in how I respond to it. I am human. I am not ashamed of that, although I am impelled to want to be more than merely human, much less to be more than (in Nietzsche's powerful phrase) "all too human." Ethics and the quest for spiritual integrity impel me to want to be better than I am, not to deny what I am. I know that I am imperfect. I am yet moved by the words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (I will let you know when I get there.) In spite of my obvious imperfections, however, I yet find the esthetic power of the nude to be [generally] greater when the erotic power is more subdued--with some very important exceptions which I have seen on this site and others.

Indeed, the photo of Rebecca which has been central to this thread ( http://www.photo.net/photo/8937273 ) is appealing to me in part because of its seeming inherent contradictions. She is, as I have said, naked but not naked at once--again in comparison with what might have been shown, and what is shown in the Rebecca folder on Jim Phelps page. She has the look of the wholesome "girl next door" who just happens to be as sexy as she can be. The other photos that I linked to her (again by Jim, in his "Rebecca" folder) put some more distance between her and the viewer. The constant throughout all her pictures (for me, at least) is yet her sense of wholesomeness. Whether the photo or the pose is more obviously sexy or not, that is, her sense of wholesomeness remains. I presume that that accounts in part for her success as a model. Again, one is speaking of perceptions, not necessarily reality. The reality is unknowable to us who see only her pictures. She projects an image of wholesomeness in her image, in any case. The photographer can perhaps change that to some degree, but I suspect that her look of wide-eyed innocence would tend to remain--unless she chose to change it. That she is capable of narrowing her eyes in the face of the too aggressive "male gaze" I do not doubt. Her potential anger in the face of the disingenuous attempt to seduce (or even to ogle in the name of "art appreciation") I can only imagine. As she appears in the photos cited, however, she looks friendly and approachable, not suspicious or hostile. If there is malice in that heart, it does not show through the eyes.

In any case, I am skeptical of the power of the photographer to take very much of that away from her--especially without her consent. There is more to be said, but this post has rambled on far too long already.

I really do not quite know where to go with further speculation on this until I have from you and others who sometimes do figure studies. These are just some idle--and wandering--thoughts that come to mind on a Sunday morning after reviewing last night's posts.

Fred, I look forward to any response by you, Josh, or any others who do figure studies or other types of nude photography. I am sure that you have given a lot more serious thought to matters that had not even occurred to me--or at least which had not previously made much of an impact. If I do not get back to you, it does not mean that your comments have been deemed unworthy, simply that at my back I hear Time's winged chariot drawing near. . . .

Andrew Marvell, where are you when we need you, exploder of myth, pretense, and hypocrisy? This thread cries out for redemption--or destruction. I do not believe that it is immortal, anymore than the first one was. In the case of this thread, however, I anticipate a natural death, not a murder. People will at some point simply become bored with it.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · April 25, 2010

"The photographer can perhaps change that to some degree, but I suspect that her look of wide-eyed innocence would tend to remain"

Lannie, I've seen what lighting can do. Yes, many photographers will seek the "essence" of a subject but a photographer can also play against type. I could sit below her and shoot Rebecca standing in a strong light also coming from below which would cast strong shadows on her body and under her eyes, projecting a looming shadow onto the wall behind her. My guess is you'd have a very different reaction to the woman you're seeing. While I often capture the truth of a subject, that truth is a photographic truth as well. The heavily shadowed, monstrous photo that could emerge from the foregoing setup may be extreme, and perhaps even a lie, but a lie in the service of a vision, a vision which is its own truth.* Presumably, Rebecca is more multi-dimensional than what any of us reads into her from a few photos by a single photographer. There are additional, even subtle techniques (blur, contrast, color, how catch lights in her eyes fall) any photographer can use to affect appearance. The innocence she and Jim have portrayed could actually be more the manipulation than my suggested vision.

*If Rebecca asked me not to show that photo to people, I might try to convince her otherwise but would accede to her desires.

"It is, after all, not a great leap from being aware of one's power as a photographer to being tempted to use that power in a potentially manipulative way"

"Manipulation" often has a negative connotation and it doesn't have to. I present as much as I represent. What is creation if not a manipulation of raw materials into something fresh and new, something expressive and, at best, transcending. I can manipulate a scene or a person's likeness to express something genuine about my subject, myself, a combination of the two, or even about humanity in general and I can do so in an ethical and responsible way.

"I am simply registering my surprise at your remark quoted above: "The viewer's subjective response comes up often. No matter how much I understand this, I come back to the photographer as the one who puts it out there. . . . " I am not so much challenging the last part, set off in italics. I am simply surprised by it, by how emphatic and absolute it sounds"

I rarely speak in absolutes so I hope you won't take it that way. I just meant to emphasize it because it hadn't been said. I don't photograph for the viewer. I am expressing myself. And, often my subject is expressing something significant I want to work with. But, I do consider that I am expressing to and communicating with a viewer. So, while I am not trying to please a viewer and not really modulating for that viewer, I work with an awareness of a viewer. It helps me express and communicate.

"My motives can be--and are--all over the place, both in what I view, and in how I respond to it."

Me too, including when I'm making a photograph. I think about catharsis and art. The way I do things transforms from what may seem a mundane definition to a new definition, perhaps a transcending definition/feeling. I do sometimes objectify my subjects. That's an exploration of a genuine reality I feel. Unconscious objectification can be really inhuman. Conscious objectification, self-awareness, can allow something to grow out of the objectification, to transcend it, and move to a deeper level. Also, sometimes my motives are sexually driven and sometimes I've been motivated by what might be considered voyeurism. Good for me. [see Josh's and SJ's insightful comments on voyeurism.] If I can channel that energy into a compelling photograph and find something worthwhile to express, find something through those feelings that captures a part of my subject that is significant, and speak to a viewer in the process, what the hell?

Norma Desmond · April 25, 2010

Addendum: Lannie, while I know you're concentrating on viewer response, I'm intentionally concentrating on the photographer's end not because I don't want to address viewer response. It's my way of doing so. I think that the more we can say about the photographer's perspective, motivations, and technique the more we might influence the latitude and awareness with which a viewer views and responds to photographs and even views their own responses. The viewer need not be aware of the specific motivation behind every shot, but an awareness of the vast potential, in general, a photographer has for expression and conveyance of a subject, the more opportunity a viewer will have for openness, flexibility, and understanding or empathy in his or her responses . . . if there is a desire for that, of course.

inoneeye · April 25, 2010

"As she appears in the photos cited, however, she looks friendly and approachable, not suspicious or hostile. If there is malice in that heart, it does not show through the eyes.

In any case, I am skeptical of the power of the photographer to take very much of that away from her--especially without her consent."

Lannie I would not see it this way. The 'power' or control in the hands and mind of the photographer can be very significant. "... without her consent" does cloudy the equation. I read that as a question of acting... and a shared informed experience between the photographer and model.

Knowledge of the medium is more often tipped in the photographers direction. exceptions not denied. This carries responsibility, ethics, and 'power' into the arena that many take issue with. The majority of the nudes I have produced have been a surprise to the model. They did not know photography well and could not accurately project the final image. Many times the result was a complete surprise. For me also sometimes. Of course they had an opportunity to see my past work and often see some prelim. polaroids. I could photograph a very gentle approachable human being in a state of aggression, or bitter, or taller, skinnier whatever I chose to do. Yes I use the knowledge I have for the medium and combined with my experiences I sculpt or capture my subjects sometimes with collusion sometimes not. 'power'?

inoneeye · April 25, 2010

Dang this writing stuff is a challenge. For clarity's sake;

"As she appears in the photos cited, however, she looks friendly and approachable, not suspicious or hostile. If there is malice in that heart, it does not show through the eyes.

In any case, I am skeptical of the power of the photographer to take very much of that away from her--especially without her consent."

Lannie I don't see it that same way. I think a photographer does wield power or influence that a model or viewer may not be privy to.

luis_g · April 26, 2010

I am left wanting a better idea of what is meant by "power", both the photographer's and the subject's, here.

This is an excerpt from a 1994 interview with Jock Sturges, found in American Suburb X:

"A pinup asks you to suspend interest in who the person is and occupy yourself entirely with looking at the body, fantasizing about what you could do with that body, completely ignoring how the person might feel about it. People who make pinup photographs don’t care who the woman is, what tragedies or triumphs that person’s life might encompass. My work hopefully works exactly counter to that. My ambition is that you look at the pictures and realize what complex, fascinating, interesting people every single one of my subjects is."

...and this, which I found amazingly unique, trust-based, and refreshing:

"They control their photographs because I don't let them sign model releases. I urge them never to sign a model release for anybody unless they have been paid specifically to do a specific job on a contractual basis, for an advertising agency or something. Who knows how they’re going to change? They might marry a Methodist minister from Minnesota and have a very conservative life. At some point in the future they might decide that these pictures embarrass them. The control shouldn’t be mine, it should be the kids’. "

luis_g · April 26, 2010

For the record, it should be noted here that several women have photographed male nudes.

Imogen Cunningham

Judy Dater

Robin Shaw

http://www.robinshaw.net/page17.htm

Dianora Niccolini

http://www.barebulb.com/paug03ndi01.php?ImageNumber=NDI01-0012-L&CURRENTGALLERY=LIMITED&GALLERYLOC=

Vivienne Maricevic (who asks her subjects to masturbate and become erect before photographing them)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8663/

Laurie Toby Edison

http://laurietobyedison.com/galleryFM.asp

http://www.barebulb.com/paug03ndi01.php?ImageNumber=NDI01-0012-L&CURRENTGALLERY=LIMITED&GALLERYLOC=

Norma Desmond · April 26, 2010

Luis, the quotes and lists are relevant.

Though I do get releases from my subjects, my commitment is that if a subject changes his/her mind, I accept that and won't use their image. I've only had that happen once. A guy was happy to pose for me and I got one particularly good picture. Though he liked the photo a lot and even asked for a copy, he requested I not show it in public. I won't.

The power of the nude, as discussed in this thread, ranges from Lannie's questioning about "vulnerability" to Josh's questioning about the "step toward sex" and more to Rebecca's "girl without a brain" to Zoe's "men have dominated the genre" to my own thoughts about "objectification." The power of the image of the penis has been discussed.

Quite a bit has recently been put out there about the power of the photographer and viewer by Josh and me. Lannie will likely have some thoughts on Josh's and my comments.

In order to get a better idea of what power might mean in this context, I suppose a good beginning would be to put your own thoughts on the table and hash them out with us.

inoneeye · April 26, 2010

JS."They control their photographs because I don't let them sign model releases."

'consent' takes on a different usage now.

Luis, yet another use of power. Control of the final image as a product belongs to the subject. It seems right to me... always has. I have many photos that I would never consider sharing without first consulting the model. Or should they ever decide to have their image remain private that is their choice. In this case the 'power' or control is in their hands.

I think Sturges photos solidly convey that sense of trust and empowerment for his subjects and their relationship. It is in his control and influence to accomplish that. and in my power to react how I will but I will predictably react differently to Sturges than Araki. Knowing that and why empowers me as a photographer and viewer.

Norma Desmond · April 26, 2010

The thread has touched upon aspects of photographic nudity that are visual, aesthetic, interpretive, political, sociological, and process oriented. There are distinctions among these and there are also overlaps and dependencies. The Sturges story and considerations of "consent" lean more to the process side, though those considerations may certainly affect how he photographs and how we view his work. As Josh recognizes, this is yet another use of power. Josh's comparison of Sturges and Araki probably gets us back to (I think) what Lannie was after and what's been discussed for a couple of days now, which is more the viewer and photographer's visualizations, aesthetics, interpretation, and usage of nudes and to an extent the subject as participant in the actual making of the photograph.

zoewiseman · April 26, 2010

"and more to Rebecca's "girl without a brain"" (Fred)

This is so utterly rude and disrespectful that I had to come back and say so. I know Rebecca, I've photographed Rebecca. She speaks German, Russian, French and English... and quite a bit of Spanish. She is one of the smartest girls I know. To talk about her this way is disgusting. I wish the Mod's would delete this. She does not deserve to be spoken about like this.

je ne regrette rien · April 26, 2010

Jeez!

the topic interests me.

It took me well over than an hour to read the previous thread - I admit I skipped some text - to try and understand something (even I was confused at some stage).

And now I realise how long this one already is.

I will find some time ...

Sign In

The Power and the Glory, Part II (see last May for Part I)

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