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

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

Trying to sort through all this is like doing the esthetic equivalent of an archeological dig all the way back to the Pleistocene. . . .

The question as I posed it is really a difficult question, and I am not at all surprised by the divergence of responses once persons start taking it seriously and get away from the tangents that plagued the thread near the outset.

The fact is that I do not know quite how to respond to you, Don, since all of us bring our conceptual and cultural baggage not only to the simple perception of the nude, but also to our further analysis of it. This is such fantastically complicated psychological and philosophical territory that I am not at all surprised, that is, that persons talk past each other. Even the concepts of "nude" and "naked" have come around in all kinds of different ways. "Defining one's terms" is very difficult in such complicated territory. Then there is the "intrusion" of various metaphysical elements and assumptions, with all of the hazards thereto appertaining.

In any case, with regard to perception and response, I would say again to everyone that "Context is everything." If we could somehow take Rebecca's image out of the immediate setting and take away as well the lip gloss, convert to black and white, etc., we would have a very different image. If I were a fifteen-year-old boy from a culture where one never sees the female form undraped to any degree, my own perception would likewise be different. If I accidentally walked in on such a woman in a dressing woman, both my perception and reaction would likewise be (vastly!) different. The artistic imagination is so rich and varied, and the philosophical terrain so confusing and perilous, that I can hardly express surprise at the way the conversation has gone. I am glad that it has held together as well as it has.

In any case, there are so many variables (especially the cultural and individual psychological ones) that I almost despair of making the kind of progress that I would really like. We are not even responding to the same interpretation of the question. Yet, even that, or especially that, does not surprise me.

Despairing of offering a typology, much less any criteria for quantification of responses (even if we had the appropriate survey questionnaire instrument), I can only say that the original posting as well as subsequent posts have at least stimulated persons to further analysis. I see no tendency toward a convergence of opinion, in any case. Indeed, the longer the discussion goes on, the more multi-faceted the issues become. We are tending toward greater complexity rather than toward simplicity, much less unity. This is, as I said, perilous philosophical territory. Jim's comments above about European v. southeastern U.S. norms and perceptions get right to the point for me--and then there is all the meta-theoretical stuff that we (and especially I) have laid down on top of our own perceptions and prima facie analyses.

I doubt that anyone has written the definitive work on such topics, although some of the cultural anthropologists would likely dismiss most of the analysis here as so much cultural baggage.

Well, again, there is "nature v. nurture," and though most of our differences might indeed be about "nurture" (cultural baggage), there is still good old human nature to consider, no matter how much that concept might be maligned by this or that school of psychology.

Finally, there are those who say "It is about the image," to which I can only say, well, yes, it is, but it is finally about us, and about what happens when we and the image come face to face, whether on the screen, or in real life.

Here, in any case, is the original image that triggered all this:

http://www.photo.net/photo/8937273&size=md

Please keep in mind as well my original quandary: she is not showing buttocks, nipples, pubic hair, genitalia or any specific body part that we might typically associate with nude photography--and is indeed showing less than one might see at the beach--and yet the overall effect is what it is: nude, and, more than that, naked, at least to me.

So. . . don't look to me for any answers, nor even any adequate summation of the issues and questions. I don't have them. The original question was an honest question. I did not know the answer when I posted it, and I am not sure that I am closer now to being able to answer my own question.

Thanks to those of you who have tried.

--Lannie

je ne regrette rien · May 3, 2010

Lannie,

I believe that you did a good summary.

Sometimes recognising that the answer is not ready at hand is a result, especially in philosophy and aesthetics.

Nevertheless I recognise some convergence in positions.

L.

jtk · May 3, 2010

The people who have posted most trenchantly here seem to have been ignored...

...they addressed obvious psychological, biological and cultural realities, rather than faux-philosophic word games. It happens that most of those people are women.

Only a few men here have suggested that they see photography in relation to wisdom, the pursuit of which is classically specified as the purpose of philosophy.

The seeming-avoidance of women's ideas, and the objectivization of women as subjects, along with the preoccupation with word games, suggests an active aversion to wisdom. IMO of course :-)

don_essedi · May 3, 2010

"Please keep in mind as well my original quandary: she is not showing buttocks, nipples, pubic hair, genitalia or any specific body part that we might typically associate with nude photography--and is indeed showing less than one might see at the beach--and yet the overall effect is what it is: nude, and, more than that, naked, at least to me."

and in the OP "Why does the photographic nude vary so greatly in its impact on us? More specifically, why do some nudes appear more naked than others?"

It is obvious that "naked" and "more naked than" means something more to you than the common meaning. "her look of wide-eyed innocence" seems to be part of the "more naked than". Nakedness becomes fused to "innocence" and then at some point in the shift to "divinity", I find myself bumping my head into the Tree of Life. Nakedness (I'm giving you a blow by blow description of how I read you)...nakedness is Edenic, before sexuality.

But, alas, we, the viewers, are post-Edenic and our responses are 'varied'. My response to viewing "Deep Thought" was 'nice cheesecake'. Perhaps the tropes of classic cheesecake are the secular version of Edenic naked innocence. Cheesecake is comic. It also has a 'before sexuality' quality although it is compromised by us being post-Edenic. That leads me to the Poetics. Aristotle wrote that comedy originated in the prologues to the phallic processions (aka fertiltiy rites)*. The close association of comedy and sexuality -- and Aristotle's comedy is mocking buffoonery, physical and explicit -- which leads me to note it as a symmetry to the close association, the parsimony of intelligent design, of our erogenous zones and our elimination zones. Not to mention the point of "fertility rites" itself.

I'm not sure what context fits "metaphysics", but there's that, too, to untangle. And there's more...

.

*he also states that the origins of comedy are obscure because nobody took it seriously, nyuk nyuk nyuk

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

John, you might be right, but I have little to add to that conversation. Shall we dispense with the female nude altogether? There was no way to respond to the other Rebecca. Fred tried but came away with claw marks. Julie is clever, but how does one respond to "Dance." Now, if it had been "Dance?" I would have responded. After all, she's just up the road "a piece" from where I live. As for Zoe, I did try, but she is a model and a photographer, after all, who shoots women in the nude. I don't. Shall I tell her to stop objectifying women? She has made her choices. I didn't expect her to consult me, and what could I have said if she had (now there is a fantasy for you)?

Fred, I stumbled onto this minutes ago:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7044442

How would one compare this to Rebecca's? She's not wearing clothes, but he is arguably revealing more (buttocks, at least). Who is more naked (corollary to my original question)? I still say that she is, if only because the absence of clothes suggests more than what one sees. I don't see how to keep the artistic imagination from roaming. The mind goes where it will--and where it goes affects both perception and response, I believe.

(Gosh, I hope that Jule comes back, unless she is intent on roasting me.)

Don, metaphysical assumptions "inform" (gosh, I hate that usage) almost everything I write in philosophy, but I am not trying to build a system here. Nonetheless, I draw from my pre-existing biases where ultimate assumptions are concerned. I see no real alternative. I allude to them where they are relevant to me. I am sorry if that sometimes makes them unintelligible to persons coming from differing mindsets.

"Luca, my most valued friend, what can I do for you?" [line from The Godfather] I have appreciated your comments. Please write some more. I won't send you to visit the Tattaglias, nor ask you to find out what "that Sollozo fellow has under his fingernails."

I have an idea for the original question: LET'S GO ASK PNINA!

--Lannie

fate_faith_change_chains · May 3, 2010

I do think the comic is art. Its general absence in the reknowned photographs of the reknowned masters of photography begs for an explanation. I'm sure any poster to this thread can name several motion picture directors, whose work is in comedy, they consider great art and the directors great artists. But who are the great comic photographers?

</blockquote>

The surrealists come closest to that I would think, and in the context of this thread, Kertesz distorted nudes, surreal and comical, comical and surreal, not any less deep in meaning and "seriousness".

http://www.all-art.org/art_20th_century/surrealist_art/kertesz/62.jpg

http://www.higherpictures.com/artists/Andre_Kertesz/images/23b.jpg

http://www.higherpictures.com/artists/Andre_Kertesz/images/s0162.jpg

Norma Desmond · May 3, 2010

Lannie, the picture you posted is beefcake, about the level of a Playgirl magazine shot. Nothing I'd be interested in discussing in relationship to "the nude" or "naked" photographs. Nothing that stimulates me philosophically, photographically, or aesthetically. If that's what you're going on about in this thread, I'm disappointed. Let's get out our Playboys and Playgirls and compare tits and pecs, I suppose. I hope this isn't the kind of picture you've been thinking of when I've talked about sensuality or sexuality with regard to the nude. This is simply a beefcake snapshot with very little aesthetic, artistic, or photographic worth to me. I have no idea why you posted it and what you'd want to discuss about it.

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

I don't know that the quality of the shot matters for discussing the issue at hand, Fred, but if you want to rant, rant.

I went looking for neither shot, nor am I going to go looking. I happened onto both, and they raised the questions that they raised.

Trying to be civil to you is like casting pearls before swine.

--Lannie

don_essedi · May 3, 2010

"Don, metaphysical assumptions "inform" (gosh, I hate that usage) almost everything I write in philosophy, but I am not trying to build a system here. Nonetheless, I draw from my pre-existing biases where ultimate assumptions are concerned. I see no real alternative. I allude to them where they are relevant to me. I am sorry if that sometimes makes them unintelligible to persons coming from differing mindsets."

I don't know whether I'm of a different mindset because I don't know what linneage of metaphysics you situate yourself. "Theistic metaphysics" is not much of a clue.

"Whether we are talking about the beauty and power of the nude or the awe, majesty, and inspiration of true love, the role of the divine is still there as the ultimate possible explanatory variable. The questions remain for me. As I said, I have no answers. I am still trying to get the questions straight."

Metaphysics has to resolve the impassible problematic, which is what I think you refer to "The ultimate puzzle is the epistemological one: how do we know? How could we?" (emph. in orig.)

We can only be "informed". We know we cannot 'pass' through the divide between material and spiritual by our reason alone and therefore know. We need the ineffable condescension of Divinity to inform us. One way that happens is through works of art. Is that anywhere near what you mean?

Norma Desmond · May 3, 2010

"I don't see how to keep the artistic imagination from roaming."

Lannie, above is what you said in your followup to the beefcake shot you posted. I was telling you that the shot doesn't engage my artistic mind. It wasn't a rant, or at least wasn't meant as a rant. It has nothing to do with quality. It's got to do with the kind of photo it is. There's lots of bad art that I would consider discussing with regard to the nude. This photo is not just bad. It's outside the realm of anything I would discuss and use the phrase "artistic imagination" alongside.

luis_g · May 3, 2010

Don E (Welcome back, btw) - "But who are the great comic photographers?"

Off the top of my head: Elliott Erwitt, Doisneau, Trent Parke, Lee Friedlander, Edward Weston, Ed van der Elsken, Kertesz, Judy Dater, Robert Adams, Daido Moriyama, Lartigue, Eisenstaedt, Philippe Halsman, William Klein, Wolfgang Tillmans, Fischl & Weiss, Les Krims, Arthur Tress, Duane Michals, Imogen Cunningham, Bruce Nauman, Man Ray, Alice Springs, Weegee, etc.

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

We need the ineffable condescension of Divinity to inform us. One way that happens is through works of art.

</blockquote>

Don, that might be close enough, although, given the usual connotation of "condescension." that is not precisely how I would have worded it. The role of the divine is what unites for me many seemingly disparate concepts and issues--on my own metaphysics, of course.

Fred, I don't go out of my way to look at male nudes. It's nothing personal. It just isn't my thing. When I happened onto this "beefcake" shot (while checking out the portfolio of someone who had responded to me on another thread earlier this afternoon), I was reminded immediately of how I had described the Rebecca shot: no revealed buttocks, nipples, pubic hair, genitalia. He revealed more than she, but she seemed more naked to me: beginning and end of my point.

I certainly did not care for the shot, either, but it was all that I had by way of an example on the other side of a gender line--and I had the link, so I posted it here. I'm sure that I could have found more or better, but I thought that it raised the pertinent comparison.

I cannot relate to beefcake, and I avoid cheesecake. Perhaps Jim's shot can be called cheesecake, and some disparaged it early on. I found it appealing and it raised an interesting intellectual question. To me the model bespoke "wholesomeness" even if the setup did not. That, however, is to start down a very different path. . . .

The nature and significance of erotica could be a thread unto itself, but it is not one that I would like to start. There is, after all, erotica and then there is erotica. Generally speaking, as I have said, the erotic for me must be wholesome (admittedly, most of the time). Thus, the allusion to "girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes" is very appealing to me without being a physical turn-on (from "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music). I can see the image in my mind. The most beautiful woman in the world tied up with cord, leather, or cuffs, however, turns me off totally. Erotica and the erotic can move around in my mind, however, and what entices me today may leave me cold tomorrow. What I like about Jim's work is that it sums up in almost all cases what I would call the "wholesome nude"--perhaps my own category, but also one of the criteria that I apply when assessing the appeal of nudes, which is not necessarily to say their enduring work as art.

Certainly the "beefcake" shot did not appeal to me on any level, and I was not offering it up here as something for esthetic evaluation--only to make the point that I have made with it.

--Lannie

don_essedi · May 3, 2010

"Off the top of my head: Elliott Erwitt, Doisneau..."

I'd just watched Tati's Mr Hulot's Holiday before writing that, and it reminded me of Doisneau. I don't know if any of the photographers you list are reknowned as comic photographers, but Doisneau's humor is recognized -- and maybe affects the esteem he is held in by some.

JPPhoto1664880217 · May 3, 2010

Phylo,

I had not seen Kertesz's distorted nudes before, I really like them.

Thanks,

Jim

don_essedi · May 3, 2010

"We need the ineffable condescension of Divinity to inform us. One way that happens is through works of art."

</blockquote>

"Don, that might be close enough, although, given the usual connotation of "condescension." that is not precisely how I would have worded it. The role of the divine is what unites for me many seemingly disparate concepts and issues--on my own metaphysics, of course."

I should have used quotation marks. "ineffable condescension" is from St John Chrysostom referring to the Incarnation. If it is "close enough", then perhaps the quotation from Callistratus is not so far off the mark as you had indicated. Similarly, one's personal metaphysics is not open to discussion until others are informed of it.

With awareness of the hyperbole, the western tradition begins with the words "Sing, O Goddess", and our philosophy since is the measure of our straining to hear.

Regards

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

one's personal metaphysics is not open to discussion until others are informed of it.

</blockquote>

Shall I preface each post with my entire 1994 book? Here is a link to it: http://www.philosophicalquestions.org/PAXtitlePAGE.html . It goes some hundreds of pages. How much should I summarize before I meet your stringent requirements for posting here? Chapter seven deals directly with metaphysical questions, but in fact there is no chapter that is free of it. There is no chapter on esthetics, and the only chapter that deals with sexual ethics has yet to be uploaded to the web.

Don, do not expect someone like me to speak "non-metaphysically." That is for post-modernists and deconstructionists.

Metaphysics is hard work, and showing how my own metaphysics is related to (which I prefer to "informs") my ethics and esthetics is not simple--certainly not something that I can easily do in a thread on Photo.net. I will not for that reason bypass allusions to it. People who are serious about philosophical conversation are aware that they are always jumping into conversations that have been ongoing for about 2,400 years. The only way that one learns to play this game is to to play it, not tell others how they should play it. I have been playing it since 1968, and I am still disoriented at times when I hear others make allusions to this and that--but I keep my ears open and try to pick up on the subtleties of various lines of argumentation. It is a good game to play, but it requires a lot more than the snide aside to catch the meaning and intent of what another is trying to convey.

I doubt that it is possible to do serious philosophy on Photo.net, but I keep trying. One need not go all the way back to Homer to get started. Plato is far enough.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

Here are a few more photos by Jim Phelps to throw into the mix:

http://www.photo.net/photo/6148002

http://www.photo.net/photo/7464907

http://www.photo.net/photo/7464909

Again, what is striking to me is that, in spite of the fact that all three photos are more revealing of the body, the formal treatment sets a different tone from the "Deep Thought" photo featuring Rebecca as the model:

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photo/8937273&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/8937273&size=md</a>

The result of this formal tone (for me at least) is that the "Deep Thought" photo featuring Rebecca gives a greater sense of "nakedness" than the three posted above hers, although (again) hers shows much more of the externalities. The others are simply "nude." The body is open to display, but there is no entry into the soul--as I sense that there is in the photo of Rebecca. How was that accomplished? I would have to ask Jim Phelps about that. He did the shoot.

As for Rebecca, here are some others in which she is the model:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=894886

There are others as well. There is also a good portfolio featuring Meliss:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=890728

Are there better examples in Edward Weston, Helmut Newton, and others? Of course there are, but these are the ones that I have chosen to link to. Any other links would be welcome by those who have the time.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

Given that I write on Christian ethics, there might be those who wonder how I might also try to post very publicly on the web about the matters treated here, including photos that are often considered indecent not only by many Christians but by many others as well.

I can only say that I have met persons who seem to be able to view nudes with total innocence and lack of lust. There are also those cultures in which persons wear no clothes but who are obviously not as promiscuous as persons in cultures where much clothing is the norm.

It thus seems to be that such persons have learned something about factoring out nudity from sexuality that many of us have not, and we do well to try to figure out what it is. American puritanism sometimes to be panting with lust at its fury about such things. A fuller capacity to appreciate the nude in art (whether photography, painting, or dance) thus requires, in my opinion, that we also learn how to factor out nudity from sexuality. The point is not to desexualize the nude. One cannot desexualize a beautiful woman if one covers her from head to toe, as the Victorians found out. There is nothing to be gained in trying. At the same time, however, there is much to be gained from being able to get past the nudity at times to appreciate much more than appears to the eye.

As for those who think that this kind of post is simply an excuse for ogling pictures of naked women, I can only say that, if that is what one wants to do, there are a lot easier ways than either starting and contributing to this thread or doing the kinds of photography that some very fine photographers are doing.

That said, the average nude on Photo.net is rather mediocre, in the same way that the average landscape is rather mediocre. There is also a lot of pure (and sometimes rather sleazy) erotica, although I still think that photosick.com still has us beat hands down in that category.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

ERRATUM

The 8:41 p.m. post by me above contains an error in the following paragraph:

The result of this formal tone (for me at least) is that the "Deep Thought" photo featuring Rebecca gives a greater sense of "nakedness" than the three posted above hers, although (again) hers shows much more of the externalities. The others are simply "nude."

</blockquote>

It should, of course, say that "hers shows much less of the externalities."

I regret the error and any others that I have made.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 3, 2010

"With awareness of the hyperbole, the western tradition begins with the words 'Sing, O Goddess', and our philosophy since is the measure of our straining to hear."

Though the English translations tend to start with the phrase 'Sing, O Goddess', the Iliad actually begins, quite significantly, with the Greek word menin, which means WRATH. Anger is what begins and runs through the Iliad, and the consequences of Achilles' anger is very much what the poem is about. I don't find philosophy to be about straining to hear. I find it to be about the love of wisdom, which is acquired not just by straining or by hearing. Philosophy is proactive, not just passive and reactive. It requires me to talk as well as to listen, to create argument as well as to delve into the arguments of others. Same for nudes. They are not simply, for me, pictures waiting to be responded to. They require something of me . . . often passion. I give to them.

"A fuller capacity to appreciate the nude in art (whether photography, painting, or dance) thus requires, in my opinion, that we [my emphasis] also learn how to factor out nudity from sexuality."

I, personally, find that a too restrictive kind of appreciation. It's abstract, impossible, and unnecessary, for me. It would zap the life out of art for me to seek such a disciplined requirement, such a rule-oriented and cleansed approach to a subject so full of so much possibility . . . sexual, sensual, emotive, physical, and otherwise.

don_essedi · May 3, 2010

Lannie: "How much should I summarize before I meet your stringent requirements for posting here?"

If I were to write that my opinion or beliefs are Marxist or Christian, you would be justified in asking me 'which Marxism?", 'which Christianity?' I ask 'which metaphysics?' No thesis on Marxism, Christianity or metaphysics required.

Fred: "Though the English translations tend to start with the phrase 'Sing, O Goddess', the Iliad actually begins, quite significantly, with the Greek word menin, which means WRATH. Anger is what begins and runs through the Iliad, and the consequences of Achilles' anger is very much what the poem is about. I don't find philosophy to be about straining to hear."

That is literally true. But what the poem is about isn't relevant here. What is relevant is the relationship between the divine and the human, between the goddess and the aoidoi. Perhaps you know the citation (I don't...the Republic?) for Plato's discussion of poets and the performance of the rhapsodes. Poets feign. The goddess does not sing to them. They repeat what they have memorized, feigning divine inspiration and the fury of possession. It's a performance. On balance, Plato had the evidence of Socrates and his daemon. If Socrates is at the beginning of our philosophical tradition, then 'hearing' is there, too, no matter it is not of much interest the past 1500 years (leaving room for the late neoplatonists, such as Iamblichus).

Landrum Kelly · May 3, 2010

That was one fine darned exchange, gentlemen. Thank you.

I won't respond now, but only because my semester grades have to be in by tomorrow at 5 p.m.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 4, 2010

"But what the poem is about isn't relevant here."

It is for me. What the poem is about is always relevant. Just as the photo is relevant. We can discuss philosophy in the abstract or we can discuss the philosophy of photography. That's why I considered Lannie's response to me so inadequate when I questioned his choice of the beefcake photo as example. He said, in effect, that the photo itself wasn't relevant: "I'm sure that I could have found more or better, but I thought that it raised the pertinent comparison." I had suggested that if we were here to talk about nudity or nakedness in terms of the amount of skin that were showing or whose buttocks we were each more inclined to like, maybe the photo he chose could have relevance, superficial and shallow at best. But in terms of philosophy about photographic nudes, sorry, it seemed and still seems irrelevant.

In order to make the Iliad relevant, what the poem is about is signficant. The Iliad is about a flesh and blood character caught up in his own passionate responses to events, his own uncontrollable anger. That has everything to do with the topic at hand. What Lannie (and Plato) are trying to do is wipe humanity clean from itself. They are both, in their own ways, trying to rid themselves (and others . . . thus Lannie's use of "we") of human passions, like anger and sexuality (or in Plato's case, sensuality or at least trust in the senses). Lannie's desire to see the nude photograph in some sort of pure form void of sexuality and participating only in Truth and Beauty -- two concepts or qualities very close to Plato's Forms, which are the height of abstraction and a far cry from the humanity of passion and the senses -- can be answered by filling in the human content rather than remaining in an abstract and unattainable Godlike purity. It is precisely the WRATH of the Iliad that is the point of relevance for me to this discussion. As the anger of the Iliad was omitted, so the substance and humanity of the nude has been omitted in most of Lannie's discussion and most if not all of his examples. I consider Plato's missing of the essential elements and significance of poetry a similar misstep. Aristotle had a better answer to Plato's mischaracterizations of art. I'm trying to supply my own more finite, human, and passionate answer to Lannie's musings about the nude.

I have asked Lannie about something similar (why he has chosen only female nudes as examples) to this . . .

"I don't go out of my way to look at male nudes. It's nothing personal. It just isn't my thing."

. . . and as far as I can tell he hasn't addressed it. He suggests he's trying to move away from sexualizing the nude and has agreed with those who claim that art requires removing sexuality from the nude equation. His examples are all female and I don't think I'm wrong in assuming Lannie is straight (he may or may not have mentioned that in the past). He is talking about the beauty and truth of the nude and the nude removed from sexuality and wanting to consider the nude on a different plane yet male nudes are not his thing. I can't help but see some sexuality wrapped up in that. Though I'm gay, it's hard for me to imagine myself making a similar statement and suggesting that female nudes aren't my thing. I find them as compelling and significant, as moving and emotive as male nudes. And I do so not because I desexualize or sexualize either, but because it's how I see.

don_essedi · May 4, 2010

Fred, I think you have less patience in this discussion than I do, or at least you move quickly while my pace is more measured. You make a good case for the relevance of the anger of Achilles to this thread. It is late and I have a Spring cold coming on, but I want to engage in the discussion with you.

For now, I'll try to clarify what I mean by "our philosophy since is the measure of our straining to hear". It might have been better to write 'metaphysics' rather than implicating philosophy in general, and to have specifically referred to the theologizing of philosophy as happened to Neoplatonism, until, when we come to the pagan revival, it has acquired the cultic apparatus of a religion. The revival was not an attempt to get back to the status quo ante the imperialization of Christianity, but rather to a condition known in the Jewish and Christian traditions as 'Edenic', when gods and men communicated face-to-face. "Hearing", whether a personal god such as Socrates daemon, oracles, such as Delphi, disembodied souls, daemons, gods in dreams and visions, occupy the first place of authority and authenticity in ancient societies. Late Neoplatonic theurgy attempted to persuade or attract divinity to possess a medium (usually a young country girl, uneducated, illiterate "innocent" and suggestible) or enter an idol and speak. Soon enough, the silence was deafening or the speech incoherent...too much noise, and no signal.

"The Iliad is about a flesh and blood character caught up in his own passionate responses to events, his own uncontrollable anger. That has everything to do with the topic at hand."

I note the wrath of Achilles was stayed by grey-eyed Athene "Hold your hand then, and obey us" she says (214). The goddess does for Achilles what the daemon does for Socrates. Socrates' daemon speaks when he is about to make a mistake. Achilles anger may be uncontrollable...until he hears the goddess speak.

I'll be using Lattimore for quotations.

je ne regrette rien · May 4, 2010

Gentlemen,

I think sometimes your posts are too long to facilitate comprehension.

That said, if we do not agree on a terminology, and are a bit rigorous in developing thoughts it will be utmost difficult to construct a sequential reasoning (which doesn't necessarily advocate linearity).

The original post is about the perception of nude photography.

Maybe it helps to start from non-nude photography and then investigate what nudes add.

<ol>

<li>Technique: let's take it for granted. Let's assume that the author of any photo, including nudes, is mastering technical aspects to the extent that s/he is capable of achieving the intended visual impact;</li>

<li>Visual impact: I would say that it is some emotional response to viewing a photo. This varies from person to person and from culture to culture. To some extent it could be placed on a positive-negative scale passing through neutrality, which equals indifference [please do not confuse it with rating, it has nothing to do with it];</li>

<li>Determinants of visual impact. Emotions provoked: love, hate, desire, disgust, peace, anger, greed, possession, envy, tranquillity, agitation, stress, fear, curiosity, harmony, disharmony, proportions and disproportions, power. Boredom. This is in my opinion particularly important: something frequently seen, seen everywhere, lowers the level of emotional impact of a photo;</li>

<li>The viewer's being: the triggered emotions depend on the viewers, their background, experience, culture, morals, emotional status. As Fred said, the visual impact is never on a blank slate.</li>

</ol>

Nudes

<ul>

<li>The visual impact of nudes includes all the above, plus</li>

<li>some type of sexual response, related to our sexual identity. I believe it's in the nature of humanity. It's related to the instinct of conservation of the species and to the sensing and satisfaction of mental and physical pleasure.</li>

</ul>

None of the above can be factored out. It's our being.

I believe one challenge is to find out the visual impact of nude photography beyond the sexual response.

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