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

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll just restate my own feeling that nude/naked is not a dichotomy or an either-or matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, your comment forces us back to the philosophical roots of this discussion. "Naked" and "nude" are ostensibly synonyms, and thus should signify the very same thing. If they always did mean the same thing, then there would, of course, be no dichotomy at all. The problem is that they clearly do not always mean the same thing.</p>

<p>The subtle nuances in the words are manifested "in use," as you well know from your own philosophical background. I am reminded of a passage from Ludwig Wittgenstein's <em>Philosophical Investigations </em>with which you are already familiar: "the meaning of a word is its use in the language" (PI 43). This view has already been presaged in the <em>Blue and Brown Books</em>: "The meaning of the expression depends entirely on how we go on using it." (73)</p>

<p>I am not inclined to dive too far back into the discussion above in which we tried to clarify the distinctions between these two words. I alluded to "family resemblances" (really another allusion to Wittgenstein, of course), but the real point is that these two words are really slippery (no pun intended) concepts in use: the usages keeps squirming around. It is hard to pin them down.</p>

<p>One could surely write a dissertation on the two words and the subtle differences in the way that they are used. I wonder if that has already been done.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><em>It's nearly impossible to read all, but</em><br>

the perception of a photo as nude or naked does not depend on the photo itself, at least not only on the photo, but a lot on the viewer.<br>

This opens up a world, which is as vast as the individual viewers are. It depends on their background, culture, beliefs, morals, on the mainstream cultural, ethic, moral, aesthetic values and what have you.<br>

And, last but not least, their genre.<br>

I don't believe in the plain <em>objectification </em>of the photographed subject either.<br>

Luca</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thank you, Luca. As I like to say in class, "Contexto es todo." "Context is everything," and there are all kinds of context--most obviously and importantly the cultural one-- but the context of the immediate event or situation is [almost] always ambiguous and problematic for me in photography, since it rarely or ever inheres in the photograph <em>per se.</em><br /><em></em><br />--Lannie</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>"the meaning of a word is its use in the language"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if Lewis Carroll ever read that:</p>

<blockquote>

<p >"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Just being mischievous...</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Most of us are, Mike, or, as the Helen Hunt character says while being sketched in the nude in <em>As Good as It Gets, </em>"We're being naughty here, pal." The artist, a gay guy played by Greg Kinnear, assures her that they are not. The sketches turn out wonderfully, no one gets violated, and true love wins in the end--but not between these two. (The obsessive-compulsive dirty old man played by Jack Nicholson gets the girl.)</p>

<p>As for Lewis Carroll (<em>Through the Looking Glass</em>), when I think "naked" and "nude," Tweedledee and Tweedledum come to mind--but, like as they may be, they still represent two different characters.</p>

<p>Where are the <em>literati</em> when we need them?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

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

<p>This one was shot through silk. On any definition, what can one say about it?</p>

<p>As bad as the "naked v. nude" choice is, it is surely preferable to the "art v. porn" question on all these works.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Here they are all skin on skin and if there was a person wearing clothes in this mass of naked body's, he/she would be the one standing out, exposed and naked, <em>identifiable </em>:<br /> http://www.spencertunick.com/<br>

<br /> Psychological / non-psychological seems more a key difference to me in portraits / nudes than naked /nude.<br>

A state of mind more than a state of body.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photo/3251073">http://www.photo.net/photo/3251073</a><br>

This one was shot through silk. On any definition, what can one say about it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a photograph, it's too finished for me, there's no way in anymore, one look and that's that, one can say that it's a model striking a pose, nude or naked, that's pretty much it. Things to me get more interesting in the "unfinished", the more visually and psychologically open :<br>

<a href="http://www.taschen.com/media/images/480/default_ce_gibson_art_edn_a_shadow_0811241536_id_182280.jpg">http://www.taschen.com/media/images/480/default_ce_gibson_art_edn_a_shadow_0811241536_id_182280.jpg</a><br>

They are both a different photography, more than they are a different way of approaching the nude.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>There are a lot of dichotomies:</p>

<ul>

<li>picture vs. art</li>

<li>nude vs. naked</li>

<li>naked vs. porn</li>

<li>...</li>

</ul>

<p>What I try to find out when I look at a photo is how much work there is behind it. On the part of the model and on the part of the photographer.<br>

A photo which looks as simple as this<br>

<a href="../photo/10272931">http://www.photo.net/photo/10272931</a><br>

is the result of work and workout on the part of the model and inspiration and technique on the part of the photographer.<br>

Not to speak of this one:<br>

<a href="../photo/7009742">http://www.photo.net/photo/7009742</a><br>

What is this?<br>

<a href="../photo/9941785">http://www.photo.net/photo/9941785</a><br>

Not much to be seen, but quite explicit, provided that the hand covering "her" is "his". Btw. what I like particularly are her tiny hands.<br>

How much technical ability behind this one?<br>

<a href="../photo/10896058">http://www.photo.net/photo/10896058</a>.<br>

I believe it is shot on film, so the trial and error process is even more challenging.<br>

L.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p><strong>Lannie</strong> "The problem is that they [the words; naked/nude] clearly do not always mean the same thing." "Fred, perhaps you or others could link to examples from that "vast gray area in between," which is where it really gets interesting intellectually as well as sensually."<br /> <br /> nude for me is a state of being undressed, lack of clothing. it may be an indivdiual, a group with or without their identity intact.. naked is more than a state of undress. many words have been used here. More...private, vulnerable, exposed, revelatory, etc.<br /> Naked is a more loaded word in photography imo. Perhaps more loaded than it has been in painting or dance, I think so. I think the direct quality of photography has increased the distance of the words. The usage ranges from the interchangeability with the word nude to suggesting that it is pornographic and degrading. <br /> It is in the 'vast gray area' that we as shooters, viewers, models and word users that we stand out as individuals. My gray area is going to be very different than Lannies.. I have seen it in your examples and I hear it in your words. I enjoy the differences and it becomes part of my understanding viewers response. To search for commonalities and recognize the differences, those elusive characteristics is fun. but the difficulty I experience is that it seems most productive to discuss nuance, refinement, details one on one. In other words, I know your definitions you know mine and we understand the common ground and the differences. Generalities and gray area do not make good bedfellas when the territory is so vast.<br /> <br /> <strong>Mike</strong> - from LC""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." stimulating thought for me, it also opened a lot of questions and qualifications. and i find myself often looking for the usage/motivation in a photograph.<br /> <br /><br /> <strong>Luca</strong> -"I don't believe in the plain <em>objectification </em>of the photographed subject either." plain? without identity? would your comment remain intact without the word plain? no I am not pursuing an writing lesson. :0 One reason I ask is because I realize that in my last post where I mention using my model like a tree to express myself I was thinking of times I approach the nude as an 'abstract'. Working with an idea that may include a total lack of identity for the model. Almost the epitome of objectification and yet entirely lacking in disrespect of the model IMO. perhaps even moreso because there is likely no way for a viewer to connect it to an individual except by their own projection.<br /> <br /><br /> <strong>Phylo</strong> "...there's no way in anymore.." I like those words as a way of seeing a photograph.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Josh</strong>,<br>

I meant to come back on this item. It could depend on my command of English, since I'm not a native speaker.<br>

<em><strong>Plain </strong></em>I used in the sense of mere.<br>

<em><strong>Objectification </strong></em>is used in relation to the authentic personality of the portrayed model - male or female. I agree, the photographer could depict the model in such a way that the identity or the personality is not shown.<br>

But in no way this can <em>actually </em>deprive the model of his/her personality.<br>

So, what I mean that whatever visual impact, the photo is fictitious. It shows something which is basically instantaneous and momentary. <em><strong>It basically lies</strong></em>.<br>

It definitely <em>cannot deprive</em> the model of his/her identity.<br>

And any disrespect in my opinion must be portrayed in a photo with the consent of the model, but actually does not deprive the model of the actual respect which must be tributed to any human being.<br>

You are right, there is the viewer's own projection, but that's entirely in the viewer's domain.<br>

I hope to have been clear.<br>

L.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Since the Powers that Be on Photo.net haven't deleted my account at my request yet, I'm going to say that we had a couple of unchallenged assumptions about women go down here: one that three posters with XX chromosomes could speak to why women didn't usually photograph male nudes. One of us has made a trivial amount of money doing some photojournalism and dog and owner portraits, one other XX person is a photo collagist who reads and comments on aesthetic philosophy on her blog, the third is a serious photographer of female nudes who gives workshops on doing this. The only way that this question makes sense is if there is a common female thing and a common male thing that we can talk about. The rest of the XY people on this board don't question the question.</p>

<p>Second bit of stupid -- the comment about women who have high powered careers "losing their femininity." This assumes there's what they do isn't a natural variant of XX behavior, but that some how along the line, they lost some essential innate thing. As a woman, I've been accused of having been born a man who did M to F trans but whose cultural conditioning as a male was breaking through. So, second bit of stupid not questioned by other XY types here.</p>

<p>Third bit of stupid has been on going and is fairly typical of people (and women do this too, but men do it more) trying to use other people's insecurities, newness, assumed lack of sophistication, to get admiration for themselves. I first ran into this gambit when I was twelve and made any adult stupid enough to gush over my paintings take them home with them, or at least out of my sight. Telling someone 61 that she reminds you of a student is bone ignorant or assumes far too much. Talking about the glories of artistic exploration and how exciting it is is to talk to a stereotype, not me.</p>

<p>Then, I asked Fred not to email me. He's not the first male who decided that his needs were greater than my boundaries on some request like this. Some one tells you in a post not to email, the only reason you might have to break that request is if you see that the person's house is on fire. Do people know how many times women are asked to rescue other people's feelings. At the same time, this all was happening, a former colleague (female) was asking me to email a former student who was depressed because she wasn't getting published to encourage her. Best thing was to mourn the dead dream and move on, or show her work to people whose praise would be based on more that a person who'd never published fantasy herself nor edited fantasy nor had other students who made names for themselves could give her.</p>

<p>I also realized that I didn't want to go through with photography what I'd been through earlier with poetry and then science fiction, the business of wading through the self-deceptions of coteries, and the various stereotypes of what women do (as seen in the unchallenged statements made in this thread), all of which are the defenses of fairly mediocre practitioners. It gets better when the company is more fully professional, but one has to earn ones way out of the muddle at the bottom, the people who know all the theory but can't do the work, the people who are sure that because most of the better performers are male and they're male, that they're better than women, or that men and women do different things (as in A.R. Ammon's statement to a female poetry student that women write about their love for men).</p>

<p>Once we've got the unchallenged cliches about women losing their femininity when they take on high powered work, of women in general doing something in general because of some general thing, it looks like stereotyping women is what the guys in this group are doing (silence tends to be interpreted as cowardice or consent).</p>

<p>The big one is Fred proved that he, for one, would not respect a woman's boundaries. It really doesn't need to get any more specific than that. If other women have asked him to keep this out of their mailboxes, I dunno, but if he's also not respecting their requests, I call pattern, and the pattern looks pretty damned sexist to me.</p>

<p>My experience with around 50 years of being serious about the arts is that if someone feed me a line I've heard or read countless time before, that's not addressing me as an individual, I won't get useful feedback from that person.</p>

<p>I'm going to continue reading one person's blog -- there's only so much neat stuff I can follow, and there's more than enough neat stuff there. Here, too much posturing.</p>

<p>Now, will the proper person do the honors and turn off my account. I removed all my galleries on Saturday.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p><strong>Luca,</strong> "<em><strong>Plain </strong></em>I used in the sense of mere". "It [ photo] definitely <em>cannot deprive</em> the model of his/her identity." to be sure. "...since I'm not a native speaker." surprised me.<br /> you were clear.<br /> perhaps <strong>I</strong> should have written, "Working with an idea that may include a total lack of <strong><em>photographic representation of</em></strong> the identity (<strong>maybe even the individualism</strong>) for the model."</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Rebecca,<br>

one question <strong>off topic</strong>.<br>

Why are boundaries a matter of genre?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The big one is Fred proved that he, for one, would not respect a woman's boundaries. It really doesn't need to get any more specific than that. If other women have asked him to keep this out of their mailboxes, I dunno, but if he's also not respecting their requests, I call pattern, and the pattern looks pretty damned sexist to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my vision of the world, if any person asks to respect boundaries, he/she has the right to be respected. Where is the sexism?</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>PS As far as I know you can turn off your account on your own. However it will not delete your forum posts, as per photo.net participation rules.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[Tip-toeing among the smoldering ruins and minefields...]</p>

<p>Here is another take on the meaning of "power" in photography, and I thought germane to the idea of it in photographing the nude, since it is so often a sexual fetish (among other things). </p>

<p> "<em>To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself in a certain relationship to the world that feels like knowledge -- and therefore, like power."</em></p>

<p><em> --- Susan Sontag.<br /></em></p>

[inoneeye]

<p>I like the suggested dimension Luis.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>What a powerful, glorious thread.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Are you being facetious, Ernest?</p>

<p>As for the original question, I will close out by offering this one:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6694634</p>

<p>What do you think? Nude but not naked? That is my take on it.</p>

<p>Then again, in what sense is it really a <em>nude</em>? She is not naked at all, is she? To what extent does this even belong in the "nude" category on PN?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>"BEAUTY THAT WORDS CANNOT RECALL. . ." --Phil Ochs</strong></p>

<p>Here really was the actual inspiration for both threads that I started on "The Power and the Glory":</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ob7cDBMc6g&feature=related</p>

<p>In other words, it really is about esthetics, beauty, not really about lust at all, when one gets to the real power and the real glory of it all: God created the human form, and it is a very worthy object of our admiration.</p>

<p>So, here is to the memory of Phil Ochs, who committed suicide in 1976. There but for fortune, my friends on PN, go you and I:</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTjRPugJ8CA</p>

<p>God bless you, Phil. Like all passionate persons, you were doomed to being misunderstood by many, but some of us really did get the point. The FBI may have considered you to be a dangerous man, but you were my hero--and always will be.</p>

<p>As for those who think that men look at nudes only because they are shots of naked women, let me simply say that the arts cross-fertilize each other in myriad and wondrous ways, from music to dance to photography to painting, etc., but that is a topic for another thread. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>[lights out]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Since God created snakes, trees, and arsenic, they ought to be just as powerful and glorious as the nude body, so why single the nude body out? I have a feeling there's some other charge behind the nude body, like sexuality or lust, that it's hard to admit to.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>There obviously is, Fred, but I think that it can be factored out--and must be factored out in some cases to recognize the pure beauty of the form, even across gender lines (or lines implied by sexual orientation, I should say). Otherwise we should not ever have gotten onto the issue of why straight women still shoot women as models. Unfortunately, that tangent developed a tangent of its own which became a diatribe and ceased to be a discussion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I don't understand your answer. It's also interesting to me that you've been moved only by the God-given power and glory of the female nude form, since those are the only examples you've linked to in each thread (as far as I recall). I guess the male form is not as godly for you. Curious.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Mystification, spiritualization, reification, sublimation.</p>

<p>"Thus finishing his grand Survey, <br /> Disgusted <em>Strephon</em> stole away <br /> Repeating in his amorous Fits, <br /> Oh! <em>Celia</em>, <em>Celia</em>, <em>Celia</em> shits!"<br>

-- Jonathan Swift<br>

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw158.html</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>¿You want male nude, señor? I give you male nude--large male nude, señor:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/10962290&size=lg</p>

<p>I have the sense that we might have dropped a smidgen below the Seventh Heaven at this point. (The photo is not a self-portrait.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As I said, Lannie, your examples kind of tell the real story of the threads.</p>