What makes the nude into a work of art?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think Owen may have been mistaken when he said Weston didn't like the nude of Weston's that he posted. In <em>Edward Weston Nudes</em>, Charis talks about it (and it's shown), then immediately after that she writes, "Were there dozens, scores, or hundreds of early nudes? Edward always ruthlessly purged work that he did not like. ..." Since this nude was not purged, it would seem that he did like it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, glad you brought that up.</p>

<p>A couple of things. <a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IVZszWi9Hz4/S6gRy-wyqiI/AAAAAAAAIAo/MmXVJ7cYjzY/s1600-h/Edward%20Weston%20First%20Nude%201918%5B6%5D.jpg">The nude Owen posted</a> is not Weston's first. It was done in 1918. He'd been doing nudes of Flora (and her children) since <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Dx7rZIPW8PAC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=weston+nude+flora&source=bl&ots=oPNh2d3bL-&sig=8nDfExBtVcOObpuGs-pbk4hKWP8&hl=en&ei=8dg6TvcXidSIApbu-PML&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=weston%20nude%20flora&f=false">as early as 1909</a>.</p>

<p>Also, he'd been doing Pictorialist nudes for over a decade, when he met Stieglitz and was so impressed with the nudes of O'Keeffe and other work Stieglitz was doing. That had a great influence on his realization that he'd been seeing a certain way for quite some time now and it led to his moving toward Realism, evident in his nudes from then on as well as in his pictures of peppers, sea shells, and even the very famous toilet <a href="http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld2vxnMlM01qbeumgo1_500.jpg">(Excusado, 1925)</a>.</p>

<p>So I'm not clear on whether he didn't like that 1918 nude from the time he took it, for whatever reasons he may have had (the least likely having anything to do with titillation), or if it was just at some later time that it seemed to him an emobodiment of that Pictorialist style he was giving up and so it no longer suited his vision or was no longer about what he wanted to be doing.</p>

<p>(Weston had disappointments even in his most successful nudes. He was never happy about the shadow on the outer portion of <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8Okg9uEZfDQ/TBUIxV1TMQI/AAAAAAAAADg/ZVnN0yt6-50/s1600/Edward+Weston.jpg">Charis's</a> right arm. Disappointments and acceptance of them is probably significant to any discussion of artists.)</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I still disagree with you Fred. I guess I think sexual and sensual are two very different things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>D.D., I invoke yet another distinction, that between the "sexual" and the overtly "titillating." Again, I do not know how to take sexuality out of nude photography, nor would I want to. I simply do not want the sexual componet to degenerate into mindless titillation.</p>

<p>I concede, however, that it is fine line, and it might be that I am playing on a very slippery slope in making such a distinction.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think sexual and sensual are two very different things</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do, too. Very much so. I just don't arbitrarily draw the lines of art by that distinction. And I think there's a blurry line at the edges of that distinction as well. I do get different feelings when a photo reaches me sexually and when it reaches me sensually but, again, I don't use that difference to categorize what is or is not great art. Honestly, your statement that sensuality (especially since it is different from sexuality) is the last thing on your mind when you look at art photos or nude photos shocked me. I've always thought of sensuality as one of the key ingredients of good photographs. (That doesn't mean I think a photo HAS TO BE sensual in order to be good. It means that when it's present, it's noticeable, affective, and significant.) </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I simply do not want the sexual componet to degenerate into mindless titillation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? And why do you think mindless titillation (which I assume is something shy of abuse) is something that something else "degenerates" into? And what's wrong with degeneration? A lot of great photographs are all about degeneration, from urban decay to the death of heroin addicts on the street.</p>

<p>How do we determine when the purity of motive has gone out of sex? What in the world is "purity of motive" anyway? </p>

[owen_omeara]

I stand corrected about when Weston took his first nude. The posted image was the first that included in his numbered

catalogue. It was numbered 1-N and it was indeed taken in 1918. As far as the model is concerned I don't think he

ever noted her name in his notes. His grandson Kim is not aware of her name ever having been noted. Kim and I

have talked about this image for years and he thinks I am nuts for loving it as much as I do.

[owen_omeara]

<p>Lannie:<br>

Let me add one more of my images to the discussion before it winds down. It is an image that has little or no sexual charge and it is one that I feel deserves to be considered as art. It is one from a workshop I was teaching last year. I would like to hear your thoughts in the context of this discussion.<br>

-Cheers</p><div></div>

[keith_anderson7]

I like nude photography because I imagine the story behind the shoot. Are the photographer and subject a couple? Hot, wild sex

after the shoot because it's so arousing? If the subject is a paid model, do they spend time with the photographer and get to know

eachother before doing the shoot? Do they talk a lot about what they each want from the shoot and types of poses or locations to be

the appropriate foil for the subject? And then did I mention the hot and wild sex they must have after the shoot :)

 

Art makes you think and feel, unartistic nudes don't. So it's mostly in the eye of the beholder of course.

[AJHingel]

<p>Owen, I have not been part of this thread, but I fell on your first uploaded nude above ( Aug 03, 2011; 08:54 p.m.). It is indeed one of the best nude shots I have seen since long. Brilliant light and use of blur. The challenging starring prevents anyone just to contemplate the nude beauty of the model and forces the viewer to be part of the scene. She is looking at us as we are looking at her and her nudidity. Great shot, that I will keep as benchmark for what nude photography can achieve. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, that's an early Edward Weston.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Yes, Fred, even I noticed it, although I don't accept that he only found his "own voice" by what he did later.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Good. It's what I've understood from reading about him, but would make for an interesting discussion sometime. I've loved his photos for a long time but am just learning more about him and definitely wanting to know more. (As you can see, I had already edited my post, wondering if it might be too controversial a claim.)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, if I were to start doing nude photography, I would want to avoid creating something that is simply for sexual titillation. That is, I would not want to be creating "porn." I am likewise not going to judge a piece of work, no matter how well it is done technically, as "great art" if its purpose seems to have been to titillate, or if that seems to be the most likely use to which it may be put.</p>

<p>As for "purity of motive," I defined it for my purposes here in the same sentence that I introduced it:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What if it should be the case that the great artistic nude transcends the "merely" artistic nude by a certain purity of motive (foregoing of sexual titillation)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, for the purposes of this discussion, that is, for evaluating and possibly creating the nude, one criterion for great art for me would have to be that is "pure" in the sense of free of this emphasis on sexual titillation. That would ruin it for me.</p>

<p>It is not my intention to be imperial in so saying. Nothing impels anyone else to follow my ideal, nor to judge by it, but that purity or freedom from titillating content or purpose would be one of my primary criteria.</p>

<p>Either one shares these values or one does not.</p>

<p>I have speculated that Weston's greatest work is free of the titillating factor to the maximum extent possible. I could be wrong.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Let me add one more of my images to the discussion before it winds down. It is an image that has little or no sexual charge and it is one that I feel deserves to be considered as art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Owen, I like it very much. Thank you for sharing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I'm not understanding. You've alternated among wanting to avoid creating something that is "simply for sexual titillation," something that is "free of an emphasis on sexual titillation," something that adheres to the "foregoing of sexual titillation." Earlier in the thread, you said "That is enough for me to establish that, in my own case at least, I really can and often do view the nude without the least sexual titillation."</p>

<p>So I'm having trouble following just how this art nude you are wanting to identify comes to be, either for the viewer or the photographer. Should it have no titillation factor ("without the least sexual titillation")? Is it OK if it has some titillation factor as long as that's not it's sole purpose? Is it OK if it has a lot of titillation factor as long as the emphasis is elsewhere? Or should it forego sexual titillation altogether? You've speculated (completely unfounded speculation) that Weston might have felt that titillation cheapened his work. That's strong stuff. "Purity of motive" is also strong stuff. Purity suggests to me NO TITILLATION ALLOWED. But you may be moderating that, I'm not sure.</p>

<p>It seems to me you started out with high ideals for the art nude. That it should lack whatever you consider to be the titillating part of sexuality. But now you're talking about emphasis, and presumably now allowing for some titillation as long as that's not all it's for.</p>

<p>Sexuality can certainly be confusing at times.</p>

<p>It's funny, you talk about art excluding mindless sexuality. I wonder if mindless sexuality isn't the most artistic and actually the purest form of sexuality. Presumably, without the interference of the mind (which would house all kinds of stuff like guilt, shame, morality, judgment), one might be in touch with the purest of sensations. If art is, at least in part, an appeal to sensation, something that really hits us in the gut, you may have struck on something significant here quite by accident.</p>

<p>Now surely, for many (or at least some), the best sex is combined with some kind of emotional bonding with their partner. Let's call that "love." But we know that all sex isn't accompanied by love and all love isn't accompanied by sex, so the two are separable. So maybe the best thing is to have mindless sex with a person you're in love with. Maybe an artistic counterpart of that is mindless sexuality (or sense-itivity) toward the nude with an accompanying love for the photograph you're creating?</p>

<p>Anyway, it gets so, so complicated.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Something often at play when I'm making nudes is that it's not about the nude person. It's about the photograph. Often my sexuality (mindless, titillating, or otherwise) is actually directed toward the act of photographing and the photograph itself rather than the subject. And often it's some combination of being directed toward the subject and the photographing. And sometimes sex is the furthers thing from my mind. It all depends.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, how it might be viewed is at least partly responsible for the ambiguity. The purpose should not be about titillation, in my opinion. What persons might get from it is quite another. Take Weston's shot of the model bending over, for example. I did not find it particularly erotic, but I might if I were in a certain mood. I see no absolute line where the capacity to titillate or be titillating is concerned. After all, clothed forms can be very titillating, too.</p>

<p>My point can be seen best at one extreme: porn is for sexual titillation pure and simple. I do not see how it can ever be great art. On the other hand, Bellocq's work is fascinating--and potentially titillating--and I still love it.</p>

<p>I certainly have no absolute standard, no litmus test, here when speaking of titillation, except in the obvious case of porn--but perhaps there are those who think that porn can be great art. I cannot call it that under any circumstances.</p>

<p>Now, setting aside what is titillating and taking up the issue of what is <em>fascinating</em>: for me the female nude is always fascinating. Since the male nude does not affect me that way, clearly some kind of sexual component is involved.</p>

<p>Of course, clothed women fascinate me, too, but perhaps not always in the same way. This is interesting psychological territory, and fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Number me among the fools.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>So, here's what it seems to boil down to, hypotheses aside. Art is not porn. And porn is not art. Cool. And it only took three summers to get there! :-)</p>

<p>Now that we got that over with, maybe next time instead of starting out by looking for a standard (what makes the nude photograph art?), which we know now (hopefully!) we will not find, we can think of ways to start on a different sort of path.</p>

<p>Here's one: What are some of the different varieties of artistic nudes and how are you affected by them as a viewer or how do you go about creating them as an author? Just an offhand suggestion. I'm sure you'll come up with something of your own.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>So, here's what it seems to boil down to, hypotheses aside. Art is not porn. And porn is not art. Cool. And it only took three summers to get there! :-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, now we have to establish what makes it art, not what prevents it from being art. </p>

<p>I tire of this game.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I have some advice for those so wraoped up in the debate of sexual attraction-titillation versus asexual depiction of female or male nude form in a desired artistic manner, or whatever combination of the two.. Forget that you are looking at a nude and imagine what it is, if it is, that speaks to you of art or of a potentially powerful visual statement. Treat it as any other attempt at art and if you find it wanting in that regard, so be it. Disregard it. If it is of a beauty or a strangeness or is something that surprises you then you may be looking at art. That is all that is important and it matters not if it is a naked human or other subject. Putting barriers (specific definitions) around the nude as an art subject is like putting barriers on your imagination. A sterile pursuit. The nude, like any other subject can be interpreted as art, or not. That should be obvious without the need for a couple hundred posts on what is art in regard to a nude subject.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Forget that you are looking at a nude</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the advice, but my immediate reaction is, no thanks. I don't forget what I'm photographing and don't forget what I'm looking at. Even if I transcend the subject, the subject is usually (though not always) still of great importance to me. Often, the subject is way more important than this vague art thing you're talking about. I can sink my teeth into a subject. I can care about it, relate to it, empathize with it, fight it, control it or let it control me or back and forth. I can respond to the subject itself sexually or not. And I can respond to my photographing sexually or not. I am photographing what I'm photographing. It's real and alive (even when it's not a human), like Weston said. It matters very much to me if it's a nude body, a horse, a landscape, a person with disabilities, a gay middle-aged man. I'm not looking for some sort of disengaged affair with art. In so many cases, it is the subject that's speaking to me or the subject photographed that's speaking to me.</p>

<p>That being said and upon further reflection, sure, Arthur, Weston proved that the pepper could be dealt with as a nude or a toilet. And so, there's much to consider in what you say. There is a sense in which all subjects are alike and all need to be paid attention to as potential photographs, etc. I just find myself getting to that place not by forgetting the subject but by paying very close attention to it. Maybe it's just two sides of the same coin.<br /> .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Putting barriers (specific definitions) around the nude as an art subject is like putting barriers on your imagination.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This I very much agree with. Well said!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I did want to add, Arthur (Luis said it very early on and I think you're approaching it as well), that whatever it is that makes something art (and we'll never name it because it's not something like a criteria or standard) will apply similarly to nudes, portraits, landscapes, and the street. Though there will be different considerations in approaching these subjects, different associations and connections, etc., artistry is artistry.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I can't resist. Then there is flesh made into art.</p><div></div>

[dd_toth]

<p>I guess you're right Fred. Maybe that's probably not the best way of phrasing it, saying that it's the last thing I notice. I guess when I can view an image of a nude body and let my eyes explore and see the beauty of it and not have it scream "sex" at me...i don't see it as being the main focus. When I think of it more, the "contemplation image" posted, of course I do see the sensuality of it. But it's not getting in the way of my viewing experience. I guess it adds to it rather then detracts from it. When it is explicitly sexual, that is when gets in the way of my experience and becomes the main focus. It's hard for me to not see "sex" whenever I look at it, rather then being aloud to view it on my own terms and see the nude form for what it is. After Arthur's contribution, I think it kind of relates to how I view all images. If I see a beautiful landscape photo and there is a bright orange garbage bag sitting in the foreground, it detracts from my viewing experience. It becomes all I can see. I can't just view it for what it is and decide for myself how I feel about the image. When I view a photo or painting I want to be able to explore it and let my eyes linger and experience it for what it is and be able to decide for myself how I feel about it. </p>

<p>I think it relates to my own upbringing and who I am. I have always been an artistic soul. Always able to see the beauty in everything and appreciate the flaws (like a not "perfect" nose or a wilted flower) and see them as adding to the beauty of what I'm viewing. I'm also very detail oriented. I think, I talk, I see everything in detail. My paintings almost always end up being more photo realistic. It's just how my brain works. So when I view a piece of art, my eyes explore every detail. I want to find the beauty in it and have it bring out an emotion, or at least an appreciation out of me. Most of the time, I don't just look at an image, view it for what it is and move on. Great art allows you to take your time viewing it, explore the composition and the details and moves your eyes around the piece, evoking some sort of emotion or reaction from you. </p>

<p>I think when you look at the history of art, anybody can take anything and call it art, but it's the recognition of the populace that makes it so, to some degree. I think when it's universally claimed and recognized as great art....that is what I am thinking about when the question is asked, When does a nude become art? I don't think my views are too far off from what the majority's is. I don't have any preferences for one thing or another, nor do I have any prejudices. So when asked the question, I realize I'm thinking, what would the general populace view as art when it comes to nude photography. Hence why I thought to look at the Top Rated Photos for Nudes on photo.net. I think even you Fred can see those images and appreciate them, and agree those are beautiful pieces of art. There are always going to be people at both ends of the extremes as far as what their personal tastes are, but there is a point where both can meet in the middle and I think that is what I'm trying to explain. <br>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Hence why I thought to look at the Top Rated Photos for Nudes on photo.net. I think even you Fred can see those images and appreciate them, and agree those are beautiful pieces of art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>D.D., first, I think we toss around the word "art" way too liberally here. Looking at the photos you referenced in your earlier post, I don't want to individually critique them but I'll give you my overall impressions. Here are the links for anyone who's interested:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/4141059</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/4034055</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/3160317</p>

<p>As a general matter, most of the stuff in the top-rated photos looks like what people think art is supposed to look like. But it often rings hollow to me. It's got the superficial look of "beauty" in the sense of a combination of "pretty," "clean," and "near perfect," but often has little depth or soul. My opinion (and I understand we differ and appreciate that . . . a lot of this is a matter of taste) is that the photos you've chosen are for the most part sterile, rely on some sort of gimmick (in at least a couple of cases), have little mystery, passion, intrigue, or life, and don't show me anything unexpected.</p>

<p>I think art is not about popularity though certainly some art is popular.</p>

<p>I don't perceive beauty and sexuality as fighting or interfering with each other. Besides, art gave up its exclusive attachment to the kind of beauty you're describing decades ago. I can definitely understand that if you were seeing a typical, pristine, cleansed, idealized landscape and there was an orange garbage bag distracting you, that would be a problem. But some landscapes these days are being shot as is, warts and all. Some are shot with an ugly side showing, with trash strewn all over the place and, in those, the orange bag would be totally appropriate. Sexuality in an image can certainly be out of place or a distraction. That depends on how it's integrated and what the shot is. But sexuality itself is not the problem or the distraction. And sometimes, it's the main point. For me, it's not out of bounds, whether as a well harmonized sub-plot or a compelling and genuine main feature. I accept it as I do lots of subject matter, as long as it works. I understand that it's a problem for others, but I consider it their problem, not the problem of sexuality or of given photographs.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>titillate</strong>: excite or stimulate as by tickling esp., excite pleasantly, gratify (a sense, the imagination, etc.), exhilerate</p>

<p>This is a bad thing?</p>

<p>Long long ago, in the town where I grew up, there was a case brought against one of those places that used to rent out "naughty" video casettes from behind the counter [if I'm misremembering some national case as local (though I can even remember the street location), please correct me -- my memory is getting worse every day]. They were charged with dealing in pornography (they probably were) and the case was put before a jury. The law hinged on one particular phrase: that in order for something to be considered pornographic, it had to "appeal to one's prurient interest."</p>

<p><strong>prurient</strong>: having or characterized by an unhealthy concern with sexual matters, encouraging such a concern</p>

<p>The jury found the defendants not guilty. Not because they didn't think the videos were pornographic; but because none of them -- not one -- would admit to having a "prurient interest." If the jurors did not have said prurient interest to be appealed to (and all said they had no such thing), the videos were ipso facto, not pornography.</p>